Not exactly a favorite around here, but the man was great at provoking discussion. I hope he's at peace now after that long battle.

Articulate_Ape

12-16-2011, 03:18 AM

What a loss of human intellect. RIP, Mr. Hitchens. :(

Articulate_Ape

12-16-2011, 03:22 AM

Not exactly a favorite around here...

That speaks more detrimentally to the character of those "around here" than to that of Christopher Hitchens, I can assure you.

djones520

12-16-2011, 04:18 AM

That speaks more detrimentally to the character of those "around here" than to that of Christopher Hitchens, I can assure you.

Well in fairness, apon review it seems that it was more just attacks on those who presented his message as opposed to Hitchens himself. I've just grown to associate animosity and Hitchens name where this site is concerned because of that.

txradioguy

12-16-2011, 05:02 AM

That speaks more detrimentally to the character of those "around here" than to that of Christopher Hitchens, I can assure you.

Right because someone who despises Mother Teresa is someone we are supposed to embrace. :rolleyes:

Exactly how is that a flaw in OUR character?

He had his strong points...but had equal reason to recieve scorn from Conservatives as well.

Odysseus

12-16-2011, 10:28 AM

Right because someone who despises Mother Teresa is someone we are supposed to embrace. :rolleyes:

Exactly how is that a flaw in OUR character?

He had his strong points...but had equal reason to recieve scorn from Conservatives as well.

Hitchens was the kind of leftist that most people on the left claim to be, but aren't. He was wrong about some things, right about others, but always honest about his beliefs and how he came by them, and because of this, you could debate with him honestly and even change his mind. He was a genuinely honest man, whose opinions were based on his convictions, rather than PC fads, and he never hesitated to speak his mind, regardless of the fallout, even when the fallout came from his own side. His support for America, for example, cost him a great deal among his fellow leftists, and could have cost him a lot more when you think about how the left reacts to real dissent, but he never wavered in support of our response to 9/11, something that took a lot of courage for someone who made his living writing for venues where America is automatically judged to be guilty, not until proven innocent, but long past the proof has been presented.

We can disagree with him and still respect him.

RIP.

noonwitch

12-16-2011, 10:46 AM

He was always an entertaining guest on Bill Maher's show or The Daily Show.

He should have the following saying engraved on his tombstone (unless he gets cremated):

All Dressed Up And No Place To Go.

Adam Wood

12-16-2011, 11:57 AM

I bet he found out he was wrong about Hell.

Arroyo_Doble

12-16-2011, 12:05 PM

I bet he found out he was wrong about Hell.

Pascal's wager.

THE Gypsy

12-16-2011, 12:47 PM

Hitchens was the kind of leftist that most people on the left claim to be, but aren't. He was wrong about some things, right about others, but always honest about his beliefs and how he came by them, and because of this, you could debate with him honestly and even change his mind. He was a genuinely honest man, whose opinions were based on his convictions, rather than PC fads, and he never hesitated to speak his mind, regardless of the fallout, even when the fallout came from his own side. His support for America, for example, cost him a great deal among his fellow leftists, and could have cost him a lot more when you think about how the left reacts to real dissent, but he never wavered in support of our response to 9/11, something that took a lot of courage for someone who made his living writing for venues where America is automatically judged to be guilty, not until proven innocent, but long past the proof has been presented.

We can disagree with him and still respect him.

RIP.

Well said. I did not agree with him on many issues, however, he was a good debater and always gave me something to think about whether I ended up agreeing with him or not.

The Night Owl

12-16-2011, 12:49 PM

Classic Adam: Place a bet which can never be settled to his side's satisfaction.

Articulate_Ape

12-16-2011, 01:32 PM

Hitchens was the kind of leftist that most people on the left claim to be, but aren't. He was wrong about some things, right about others, but always honest about his beliefs and how he came by them, and because of this, you could debate with him honestly and even change his mind. He was a genuinely honest man, whose opinions were based on his convictions, rather than PC fads, and he never hesitated to speak his mind, regardless of the fallout, even when the fallout came from his own side. His support for America, for example, cost him a great deal among his fellow leftists, and could have cost him a lot more when you think about how the left reacts to real dissent, but he never wavered in support of our response to 9/11, something that took a lot of courage for someone who made his living writing for venues where America is automatically judged to be guilty, not until proven innocent, but long past the proof has been presented.

We can disagree with him and still respect him.

RIP.

Perfectly stated, Ody.

BadCat

12-16-2011, 03:21 PM

Didn't much care for him, won't miss him.

Adam Wood

12-16-2011, 03:41 PM

Classic Adam: Place a bet which can never be settled to his side's satisfaction.Classic Night Bowel: unable (or, more likely, just pig-headedly unwilling) to recognize a figure of speech when it's right in front of him.

Right because someone who despises Mother Teresa is someone we are supposed to embrace. :rolleyes:

Exactly how is that a flaw in OUR character?

He had his strong points...but had equal reason to recieve scorn from Conservatives as well.

I don't remember him saying he "despised Mother Teresa".

Something he DID say, and was a valid point, was..."[Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

Adam Wood

12-16-2011, 05:38 PM

I don't remember him saying he "despised Mother Teresa".

Something he DID say, and was a valid point, was..."[Mother Teresa] was not a friend of the poor. She was a friend of poverty. She said that suffering was a gift from God. She spent her life opposing the only cure for poverty, which is the empowerment of women and the emancipation of them from a livestock version of compulsory reproduction."

Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took – and I would directly say stole…millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it — when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize — that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.

I think it's pretty safe to surmise that he hated her.

My, what a delightful man. :rolleyes:

JB

12-16-2011, 05:46 PM

That speaks more detrimentally to the character of those "around here" than to that of Christopher Hitchens, I can assure you.I'd put the character of the conservatives on this board above Hitchens. Around here Hitchens would fall below Noonie but above wee-wee.

Actually, since Hitchens was a Marxist and loved Che, he'd rank below the CU libs.

But look on the bright side, we all got smarter today. Another condescending anti-theist that considered himself more brilliant than the rest of us no longer skews the intelligence bell curve as an outlier. :rolleyes:

Articulate_Ape

12-16-2011, 06:37 PM

I'd put the character of the conservatives on this board above Hitchens. Around here Hitchens would fall below Noonie but above wee-wee.

Actually, since Hitchens was a Marxist and loved Che, he'd rank below the CU libs.

But look on the bright side, we all got smarter today. Another condescending anti-theist that considered himself more brilliant than the rest of us no longer skews the intelligence bell curve as an outlier. :rolleyes:

That this {9-11} was an assault upon our society, whatever its ostensible capitalist and militarist "targets," was again thought too obvious a point for a clever person to make. It became increasingly obvious, though, with every successive nihilistic attack on London, Madrid, Istanbul, Baghdad, and Bali. There was always some "intellectual," however, to argue in each case that the policy of Tony Blair, or George Bush, or the Spanish government, was the "root cause" of the broad-daylight slaughter of civilians. Responsibility, somehow, never lay squarely with the perpetrators.

Today, he is a far smarter man. And far sorrier. Pray for mercy on him.

txradioguy

12-17-2011, 04:30 AM

I'd put the character of the conservatives on this board above Hitchens. Around here Hitchens would fall below Noonie but above wee-wee.

Actually, since Hitchens was a Marxist and loved Che, he'd rank below the CU libs.

But look on the bright side, we all got smarter today. Another condescending anti-theist that considered himself more brilliant than the rest of us no longer skews the intelligence bell curve as an outlier. :rolleyes:

And he now knows whether he was right or wrong about being an Atheist. :D

txradioguy

12-17-2011, 04:32 AM

I don't remember him saying he "despised Mother Teresa".

He called her a "political opportunist".

Lutz, author of Doublespeak, said Mr. Hitchens was steadfast in his beliefs, however unpopular. "He was fearless in the subject matters that he chose . . . to write about," said Lutz. "How many writers declare Mother Teresa was a fraud and a fake?" (In a 1995 book, Mr. Hitchens attacked Mother Teresa as a political opportunist who spread an extremist religious ideology.)

http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/135775848.html

THE Gypsy

12-17-2011, 02:42 PM

He called her a "political opportunist".

http://www.philly.com/philly/obituaries/135775848.html

Do you believe that statement is incorrect?

And calling her a "political opportunist" is a long way from saying he "despised Mother Teresa".

THE Gypsy

12-17-2011, 07:31 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HECI4QK_mXA&feature=player_embedded

:D

CueSi

12-17-2011, 08:35 PM

Hitchens was the kind of leftist that most people on the left claim to be, but aren't. He was wrong about some things, right about others, but always honest about his beliefs and how he came by them, and because of this, you could debate with him honestly and even change his mind. He was a genuinely honest man, whose opinions were based on his convictions, rather than PC fads, and he never hesitated to speak his mind, regardless of the fallout, even when the fallout came from his own side. His support for America, for example, cost him a great deal among his fellow leftists, and could have cost him a lot more when you think about how the left reacts to real dissent, but he never wavered in support of our response to 9/11, something that took a lot of courage for someone who made his living writing for venues where America is automatically judged to be guilty, not until proven innocent, but long past the proof has been presented.

We can disagree with him and still respect him.

RIP.

This. I'll be honest. Other than my father, he is the only atheist that makes me hope he is right about the afterlife.

~QC

Wei Wu Wei

12-18-2011, 12:00 PM

And he now knows whether he was right or wrong about being an Atheist. :D

He can't know if he's right. If he was right, he doesn't know anything.

The Night Owl

12-18-2011, 12:20 PM

Today, he is a far smarter man. And far sorrier. Pray for mercy on him.

That's right. If the Bible is to be believed, God sent Christopher Hitchens to an eternity of suffering in Hell... because he loves him.

:rotfl:

CueSi

12-18-2011, 12:58 PM

That's right. If the Bible is to be believed, God sent Christopher Hitchens to an eternity of suffering in Hell... because he loves him.

:rotfl:

There you go again.

Going to hell is a choice YOU make. God doesn't send people to hell. YOU send yourself to hell by declining what God offers.

Going to hell works like this: if with your life, actions and motivations, you express, "I really don't want any part of You, Your presence or Your ways."

God says, "Fine."

Hence, hell. Why should God force you into His presence if you don't want it?

But. . .hey, if you want to twist it into something it isn't, be my guest, hon.

Personally, I hope he didn't make that choice. I hate the idea of people going to hell, but - - if that is what someone wants - - can't stop 'em.

And TNO, sometimes you're such a prick, I hope to Tebow on your grave. :)

~QC

Novaheart

12-18-2011, 01:53 PM

Right because someone who despises Mother Teresa is someone we are supposed to embrace. :rolleyes: .

WHy did he despise Mother Teresa?

Rockntractor

12-18-2011, 02:26 PM

WHy did he despise Mother Teresa?

Catholic attitude toward birth control.

Novaheart

12-18-2011, 02:34 PM

Catholic attitude toward birth control.

I thought it was because she chummed around with Baby Doc or something like that.

I also consider the Vatican's activity around birth control and AIDS prevention to be disgusting and inexcusable. Overpopulation and AIDS are two huge killers in Africa, and how it's anything other than complicit for the Church to promote both is beyond me. Especially when the Biblical support is weak. The Bible may say be fruitful and multiply, but to my knowledge it doesn't say, "fuck till you can't feed your children or yourself".

Rockntractor

12-18-2011, 02:37 PM

I thought it was because she chummed around with Baby Doc or something like that.

I also consider the Vatican's activity around birth control and AIDS prevention to be disgusting and inexcusable. Overpopulation and AIDS are two huge killers in Africa, and how it's anything other than complicit for the Church to promote both is beyond me. Especially when the Biblical support is weak. The Bible may say be fruitful and multiply, but to my knowledge it doesn't say, "fuck till you can't feed your children or yourself".

Going to hell is a choice YOU make. God doesn't send people to hell. YOU send yourself to hell by declining what God offers.

Going to hell works like this: if with your life, actions and motivations, you express, "I really don't want any part of You, Your presence or Your ways."

God says, "Fine."

Hence, hell. Why should God force you into His presence if you don't want it?

But. . .hey, if you want to twist it into something it isn't, be my guest, hon.

Personally, I hope he didn't make that choice. I hate the idea of people going to hell, but - - if that is what someone wants - - can't stop 'em.

And TNO, sometimes you're such a prick, I hope to Tebow on your grave. :)

~QC

Hell is a choice? Okay, let's assume it is. Now that Hitchens has spent some time in Hell, he must realize what a drag it is. Can he leave? Will your merciful and loving god allow that?

Rockntractor

12-18-2011, 03:01 PM

Hell is a choice? Okay, let's assume it is. Now that Hitchens has spent some time in Hell, he must realize what a drag it is. Can he leave? Will your merciful and loving god allow that?

He had his chance Hootie, now it's yours.

The Night Owl

12-18-2011, 03:04 PM

He had his chance Hootie, now it's yours.

So, God gives us one chance at avoiding an eternity of suffering. Now that's love!

SarasotaRepub

12-18-2011, 03:13 PM

Life isn't fair.:p

Novaheart

12-18-2011, 03:51 PM

He had his chance Hootie, now it's yours.

Hell is a Biblically unsupported construct, borrowed from European mythology in the creation of Christianity as the state religion of Rome.

ABC in Georgia

12-18-2011, 03:55 PM

Hell is a Biblically unsupported construct, borrowed from European mythology in the creation of Christianity as the state religion of Rome.

You had better bloody-well hope so, for your own sake, Nova!

~ ABC

txradioguy

12-18-2011, 04:37 PM

WHy did he despise Mother Teresa?

Thought she was some kind of political opportunist.

txradioguy

12-18-2011, 04:38 PM

Do you believe that statement is incorrect?

Extremely incorrect.

And calling her a "political opportunist" is a long way from saying he "despised Mother Teresa".

If you read the whole quote...you'd have to be an idiot to not see that he despised her.

It's not a leap nor is it incorrect to say that he did.

txradioguy

12-18-2011, 04:40 PM

That's right. If the Bible is to be believed, God sent Christopher Hitchens to an eternity of suffering in Hell... because he loves him.

:rotfl:

Go play in traffic.

txradioguy

12-18-2011, 04:42 PM

Hell is a Biblically unsupported construct, borrowed from European mythology in the creation of Christianity as the state religion of Rome.

Boy are you and the Foul Owl in for a BIG surprise.

Rockntractor

12-18-2011, 04:54 PM

Boy are you and the Foul Owl in for a BIG surprise.

Something tells me neither will be surprised but hopefully they change their minds before then.

The Night Owl

12-18-2011, 08:19 PM

Boy are you and the Foul Owl in for a BIG surprise.

There is no Heaven or Hell. They are just made-up nonsense designed to enslave the human mind.

CueSi

12-18-2011, 08:54 PM

Hell is a choice? Okay, let's assume it is. Now that Hitchens has spent some time in Hell, he must realize what a drag it is. Can he leave? Will your merciful and loving god allow that?

He's also just. You forget that.

Think of it like this. Should a professor pass a student who has never shown up to class,never studied, insulted the professor and his methods, simply because he doesn't like the consequences of his bad grade?

Most of us would say no, and I think you would too.

So: why do you expect this of God? And are you asking out of genuine curiosity or just giving into your need to snipe dairy cows* ?

~QC

P.S- Dairy Cows reference comes from THIS famous quote: "Making fun of born-again Christians is like hunting dairy cows with a high powered rifle and scope." »P. J. O'Rourke

ABC in Georgia

12-18-2011, 09:11 PM

Go play in traffic.

Am with you Tex ...

Why do they even bother putting down all believers in here? Beats me! Is not going to change our minds.

In the meantime, let them get a load of this ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=73XqbwuEmNI&feature=related

~ ABC

Wei Wu Wei

12-18-2011, 10:28 PM

You had better bloody-well hope so, for your own sake, Nova!

~ ABC

To be fair, looking at it "objectively", hell is incredibly unlikely.

People often say "well hell may exist or may not, it's a 50/50 chance and I'd rather believe in it and be safe", but that's not at all how the odds work.

That's like me choosing a number totally at random, and saying to you "do you think my number is 954? yes or no?" and then you say "well it either is or it isn't, so it's a 50/50 chance". That's not true at all. There is a chance that my number is 954, but there's also a chance that it is 953, 909, 9, 10, or any other of the infinite numbers on the real number line. It's almost impossible that given every number, the number randomly chosen is any specific number.

Wei Wu Wei

12-18-2011, 10:31 PM

He's also just. You forget that.

Think of it like this. Should a professor pass a student who has never shown up to class,never studied, insulted the professor and his methods, simply because he doesn't like the consequences of his bad grade?

Most of us would say no, and I think you would too.

So: why do you expect this of God? And are you asking out of genuine curiosity or just giving into your need to snipe dairy cows ?

~QC

I've heard this argued in a certain way you might find interesting.

If God is just, then hell is impossible.

How can any number of finite sins, during a finite time, warrant an eternity of punishment?

Another argument being that if the sacrifice of Christ is enough to forgive all sins from all people ever, how can a mortal man commit enough sins to condemn him for eternity?

Granted, this issue gets far more complex at this point, but this is pretty interesting .

Rockntractor

12-18-2011, 10:35 PM

I've heard this argued in a certain way you might find interesting.

If God is just, then hell is impossible.

How can any number of finite sins, during a finite time, warrant an eternity of punishment?

Another argument being that if the sacrifice of Christ is enough to forgive all sins from all people ever, how can a mortal man commit enough sins to condemn him for eternity?

Granted, this issue gets far more complex at this point, but this is pretty interesting .

You should stick to contemplating your navel, you still don't adequately understand it yet.

ABC in Georgia

12-18-2011, 11:06 PM

To be fair, looking at it "objectively", hell is incredibly unlikely.

People often say "well hell may exist or may not, it's a 50/50 chance and I'd rather believe in it and be safe", but that's not at all how the odds work.

Really now? I've never come across anyone at all, that has *ever* said that. Sounds rather cowardly to me.

That's like me choosing a number totally at random, and saying to you "do you think my number is 954? yes or no?"

My answer? How the hell would I know what your number is ... much less, care? And furthermore, why should I waste time argueing with someone whose facts are based on such ridiculous bogus premises, hmmm?

and then you say "well it either is or it isn't, so it's a 50/50 chance".

:blah: :blah: :blah:

Nice try! ~ ABC

Wei Wu Wei

12-18-2011, 11:16 PM

It's the general sentiment behind Pascal's Wager.

The sentiment is that the Christian God and the associated Christian cosmology is either true or untrue, and you're better off assuming it's true because you don't lose anything if you're wrong. This presumes that the only options are this specific religious interpretation or nothing at all. It's considering the 2 choices of "true or not true" as being a 50/50 shot for all practical purposes.

I'm pointing out that if you consider the actual range of possibilities, "right vs not right" isn't actually a 50/50 shot. Hence the example with the numbers. If a computer picks a number at random, that number either is or is not 470, but those two possibilities are not equal possibilities, because there's an infinite number of possibilities in the "not" category, and only one single possibility in the "is" possibility.

Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating my thoughts here.

ABC in Georgia

12-18-2011, 11:24 PM

Perhaps I'm not doing a good job of communicating my thoughts here.

My goodness, where have we heard that particular excuse used before, huh? :)

Just as with Obama ... you're communicating just fine ... problem is, we are having none OF it!

~ ABC

Novaheart

12-18-2011, 11:52 PM

My goodness, where have we heard that particular excuse used before, huh? :)

Just as with Obama ... you're communicating just fine ... problem is, we are having none OF it!

~ ABC

The problem with your response is that Wei is inarguably correct.

Your concept of Hell does not originate in scripture, that can also be proved. The fact that you may believe in the Bible as the literal word and that you may also believe in Hell doesn't mean that Hell is supported by an objective read of the Bible.

In fact the very notion of Hell is in conflict with both the Old Testament and the New Testament.

In the Old Testament, we are told that the dead know not anything (Ecclesiastes 9:5). In other words they are dead, and cannot experience the pleasure of the world or the torture invented as Hell centuries after the Old Testament was written.

In the New Testament, in Romans 6:23 we are told that the wages of sin is death (not hell), and that salvation through Jesus Christ bring the gift of everlasting life.

The word "hell" is an English word from the Middle Ages, so any time you see it associated with the Bible, you are looking at a mistranslation or a deception.

Odysseus

12-18-2011, 11:57 PM

I've heard this argued in a certain way you might find interesting.

If God is just, then hell is impossible.

How can any number of finite sins, during a finite time, warrant an eternity of punishment?

Another argument being that if the sacrifice of Christ is enough to forgive all sins from all people ever, how can a mortal man commit enough sins to condemn him for eternity?

Granted, this issue gets far more complex at this point, but this is pretty interesting .

Why is it that those who most loudly denounce the idea of hell are also the ones most likely to try to create it on Earth?

CueSi

12-19-2011, 01:43 AM

I've heard this argued in a certain way you might find interesting.

If God is just, then hell is impossible.

How can any number of finite sins, during a finite time, warrant an eternity of punishment?

Another argument being that if the sacrifice of Christ is enough to forgive all sins from all people ever, how can a mortal man commit enough sins to condemn him for eternity?

Granted, this issue gets far more complex at this point, but this is pretty interesting .

Not all sins, one sin. Rejecting the sacrifice of Christ offered to you and it's ramifications. It's not the quantity that condemns you, it's the one thing you can do to avoid condemnation that condemns you.

There, pondering solved. :p

~QC

Odysseus

12-19-2011, 01:47 AM

Not all sins, one sin. Rejecting the sacrifice of Christ offered to you and it's ramifications. It's not the quantity that condemns you, it's the one thing you can do to avoid condemnation that condemns you.

There, pondering solved. :p

~QC

Oy, am I in trouble... :D

CueSi

12-19-2011, 01:49 AM

Oy, am I in trouble... :D

<Shrug>

Dude, you have the info. Do with it what you wish. I ain't making you do a darn thing. :p (yes, this is literally how i proselytize)

~QC

djones520

12-19-2011, 01:55 AM

Oy, am I in trouble... :D

Dont' worry, not all the company will be bad when you get there. I'll be there too. :D

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 03:11 AM

Think of it like this. Should a professor pass a student who has never shown up to class,never studied, insulted the professor and his methods, simply because he doesn't like the consequences of his bad grade?

Most of us would say no, and I think you would too.

If failing the student means the student is doomed to suffer for the rest of eternity, then should the professor fail the student? Most of us would say "no" and I think you would too.

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 03:15 AM

Not all sins, one sin. Rejecting the sacrifice of Christ offered to you and it's ramifications. It's not the quantity that condemns you, it's the one thing you can do to avoid condemnation that condemns you.

There, pondering solved. :p

~QC

What sacrifice? Sure, Christ suffered a lot but he still got eternal life in the end. Or so the story goes.

txradioguy

12-19-2011, 05:38 AM

Am with you Tex ...

Why do they even bother putting down all believers in here? Beats me! Is not going to change our minds.

Because as as a friend of mine pointed out the other day...and I quoted in my Kwanzaa hoax post...they are anti-theists...not atheists.

True atheists wouldn't care one way or another what we believe.

Anti-theists have an uncontrollable desire to go around telling believers how stupid we are.

Exhibit A: TNO and Nova.

CueSi

12-19-2011, 09:57 AM

So, God gives us one chance at avoiding an eternity of suffering. Now that's love!

Considering he was not obligated to do so, and gave up something He loved, yes, it is love.

If failing the student means the student is doomed to suffer for the rest of eternity, then should the professor fail the student? Most of us would say "no" and I think you would too.

Stop moving the goalposts.

Yea, I would hold to the original penalty. I wouldn't LIKE it, but as someone who has put in the work, I would think it unfair for someone who didn't put in the work to get rewarded. I'm not happy about it, and you don't have to accept it.

So, you didn't answer. Are you doing this out of genuine curiosity or your need to snipe dairy cows?

~QC

CueSi

12-19-2011, 10:03 AM

What sacrifice? Sure, Christ suffered a lot but he still got eternal life in the end. Or so the story goes.

He sacrificed His time, divinity and purity to do so. Of course you don't believe it. And if you're asking out of a condescending need to ridicule, take your need to do so to where its a bonifide risk .

~QC

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 11:11 AM

He sacrificed His time, divinity and purity to do so. Of course you don't believe it. And if you're asking out of a condescending need to ridicule, take your need to do so to where its a bonifide risk .

~QC

So, because Jesus was crucified, God has less time, is less divine, and is less pure? What are you talking about?

Considering he was not obligated to do so, and gave up something He loved, yes, it is love.

In the end, Jesus survived death, did he not? So, what was lost?

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 11:13 AM

Because as as a friend of mine pointed out the other day...and I quoted in my Kwanzaa hoax post...they are anti-theists...not atheists.

True atheists wouldn't care one way or another what we believe.

Anti-theists have an uncontrollable desire to go around telling believers how stupid we are.

Exhibit A: TNO and Nova.

I don't think believers are stupid. I've said this repeatedly and I'll say it again: There's no significant difference between believer brains and unbeliever brains. I suspect that faith is rooted in emotional needs and desires, not intellectual deficits.

CueSi

12-19-2011, 11:37 AM

So, because Jesus was crucified, God has less time, is less divine, and is less pure? What are you talking about?
In the end, Jesus survived death, did he not? So, what was lost?

He gave up his divinity and went to Hell so we didn't have to. He became human, limiting his divinity and becoming a blood sacrifice. As an infinite being, he stepped into time. As a pure being, he stepped into a sinful world. That is what was lost.

And remember, he was not obligated to do so.

So, why are you doing this? Do you have genuine curiosity, or a need to snipe dairy cows?

~QC

ABC in Georgia

12-19-2011, 12:29 PM

Pascal's infamous Wager, be damned! Why should I give a fig about some 17th. century mathematician's questioning himself about the existence of God?

Proverbs 26:4
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

And on that note TNO, Nova, and Arroyo, I am outta here!

Fini ... Fertig ... Finito, and in Journalese ...

*** 30 ***

~ ABC :an: :D

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 01:25 PM

He gave up his divinity and went to Hell so we didn't have to. He became human, limiting his divinity and becoming a blood sacrifice. As an infinite being, he stepped into time. As a pure being, he stepped into a sinful world. That is what was lost.

And remember, he was not obligated to do so.

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, so I don't see how you can argue that he gave up his divinity at any point.

So, why are you doing this? Do you have genuine curiosity, or a need to snipe dairy cows?

~QC

Because I see value in exposing lies.

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 01:27 PM

Proverbs 26:4
"Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself."

And here I thought atheists were supposed to be the condescending ones. So much for that.

Adam Wood

12-19-2011, 01:36 PM

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, so I don't see how you can argue that he gave up his divinity at any point. He died as a mortal.

Because I see value in exposing lies.No, you don't. You think you're morally superior to the rest of us and try to hold your self-importance over people in order to make yourself feel better about yourself. In other words, you're yet another desperately insecure militant atheist who just can't stand the thought that you might not be quite the supreme being that you believe yourself to be.

The Night Owl

12-19-2011, 01:55 PM

He died as a mortal.

And he rose on the third day. So, no problem.

Bailey

12-19-2011, 01:57 PM

And he rose on the third day. So, no problem.

No he suffered the in between time in hell so I do see a problem.

Bailey

12-19-2011, 01:57 PM

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, so I don't see how you can argue that he gave up his divinity at any point.

Because I see value in exposing lies.

So why dont you see the value in exposing the AGW lies?

Wei Wu Wei

12-19-2011, 02:19 PM

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, so I don't see how you can argue that he gave up his divinity at any point.

It's been argued that at this moment, Jesus was forsaken by God, which effectively means that in this radical moment, God was separated from himself. This is a crucial moment because Man's condition is defined by his own radical separation from God, and it becomes this very separation from God which unites us with God, because through Christ, that very separation itself becomes the bridge.

Wei Wu Wei

12-19-2011, 02:27 PM

I don't think believers are stupid. I've said this repeatedly and I'll say it again: There's no significant difference between believer brains and unbeliever brains. I suspect that faith is rooted in emotional needs and desires, not intellectual deficits.

Faith is rooted in rationalism.

There is no rationality without faith. It's like G.K. Chesteron pointed out in Orthodoxy:

"The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. "

Also:

"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed."

Rockntractor

12-19-2011, 02:36 PM

Faith is rooted in rationalism.

There is no rationality without faith. It's like G.K. Chesteron pointed out in Orthodoxy:

"The creeds and the crusades, the hierarchies and horrible persecutions were not organized, as is ignorantly said, for the suppression of reason. They were organized for the difficult defence of reason. Man, by a blind instinct, knew that if once things were wildly questioned, reason could be questioned first. "

Also:

"It is idle to talk always of the alternative of reason and faith. Reason is itself a matter of faith. It is an act of faith to assert that our thoughts have any relation to reality at all. If you are merely a sceptic, you must sooner or later ask yourself the question, "Why should ANYTHING go right; even observation and deduction? Why should not good logic be as misleading as bad logic? They are both movements in the brain of a bewildered ape?" The young sceptic says, "I have a right to think for myself." But the old sceptic, the complete sceptic, says, "I have no right to think for myself. I have no right to think at all."

There is a thought that stops thought. That is the only thought that ought to be stopped. That is the ultimate evil against which all religious authority was aimed."
:blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::b lah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::bla h::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah: :blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::b lah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::bla h::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah: :blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::b lah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::blah::bla h::blah::blah::blah:

burwil

12-19-2011, 03:26 PM

While so far, I haven't really been tempted to violate the conditions of my ban, I just have to for this thread - don't worry, its unlikely I'll posting anywhere else anytime soon (or at all).

On choosing Hell - Hell is, by definition, a place where nobody will be better off. Heaven is, by definition, a place where everybody will be better off.

Nobody who is reasoning properly and informed of all the facts about the true consequences of choosing Hell, could actually choose Hell over Heaven. Choosing Hell would be as fundamentally self-destructive and irrational as it would be to choose to stab oneself in the face, repeatedly, for no reason.

What about free will? Well, its extremely doubtful free will is so valuable in its own right, that it's violation would be worse than choosing Hell freely. The free will defense is at odds with everything we believe about common-sense morality. Why people readily swallow this idea without questioning, as if it explains everything, really puzzles me.

Would it be morally acceptable, for example, to let a child refuse his vaccinations because he was deathly afraid of needles, in the interest of preserving his free will? Of course not. The violation of his free will is trivial, compared with the consequences to his greater good.

We'd all generally agree that it would be better if this child could be made to fully understand why it was important that he suffer the discomfort of a few needle pricks, and would go forward willingly, but in the event that he can't be made to understand, we force him anyway. If free will were so important, we wouldn't.

In fact, it's considered morally negligent NOT to violate his free will in this instance.

So it seems that choosing hell, entails one or both of the following conditions in the choosing agent:

a) One is so fundamentally irrational, that he would be accurately called insane.
b) One is ignorant of certain facts or reasoning improperly, and so cannot comprehend the consequences of his choice.

Both of those conditions are maladies that an all-powerful being can reasonably be expected to have the power to cure (unlike a college professor). And an all-good being would have the desire to cure them. But apparently Jesus either doesn't have the power, or the desire, or both. In fact, I think the above 2 conditions are essentially freedom limiting. They are actually constraints upon one's free will, and any choices made under their duress, are fundamentally non-free.

So there you have it - cute analogies about college professors aside - choosing Hell entails that one's free will is crucially limited - and even if one could freely choose Hell - allowing them to do so, if you had the power to prevent it, would be morally repugnant.

Rockntractor

12-19-2011, 03:36 PM

While so far, I haven't really been tempted to violate the conditions of my ban, I just have to for this thread - don't worry, its unlikely I'll posting anywhere else anytime soon (or at all).

On choosing Hell - Hell is, by definition, a place where nobody will be better off. Heaven is, by definition, a place where everybody will be better off.

Nobody who is reasoning properly and informed of all the facts about the true consequences of choosing Hell, could actually choose Hell over Heaven. Choosing Hell would be as fundamentally self-destructive and irrational as it would be to choose to stab oneself in the face, repeatedly, for no reason.

What about free will? Well, its extremely doubtful free will is so valuable in its own right, that it's violation would be worse than choosing Hell freely. The free will defense is at odds with everything we believe about common-sense morality. Why people readily swallow this idea without questioning, as if it explains everything, really puzzles me.

Would it be morally acceptable, for example, to let a child refuse his vaccinations because he was deathly afraid of needles, in the interest of preserving his free will? Of course not. The violation of his free will is trivial, compared with the consequences to his greater good.

We'd all generally agree that it would be better if this child could be made to fully understand why it was important that he suffer the discomfort of a few needle pricks, and would go forward willingly, but in the event that he can't be made to understand, we force him anyway. If free will were so important, we wouldn't.

In fact, it's considered morally negligent NOT to violate his free will in this instance.

So it seems that choosing hell, entails one or both of the following conditions in the choosing agent:

a) One is so fundamentally irrational, that he would be accurately called insane.
b) One is ignorant of certain facts or reasoning improperly, and so cannot comprehend the consequences of his choice.

Both of those conditions are maladies that an all-powerful being can reasonably be expected to have the power to cure (unlike a college professor). And an all-good being would have the desire to cure them. But apparently Jesus either doesn't have the power, or the desire, or both. In fact, I think the above 2 conditions are essentially freedom limiting. They are actually constraints upon one's free will, and any choices made under their duress, are fundamentally non-free.

So there you have it - cute analogies about college professors aside - choosing Hell entails that one's free will is crucially limited - and even if one could freely choose Hell - allowing them to do so, if you had the power to prevent it, would be morally repugnant.

Hi Wilbur, just behave yourself.

JB

12-19-2011, 07:08 PM

Because I see value in exposing lies.Well then you are going to be shouting at the rain for a good long time.

The irony is, you'll have created your own earthly hell in your own mind.

CueSi

12-19-2011, 08:27 PM

The Bible teaches that Jesus was both God and man, so I don't see how you can argue that he gave up his divinity at any point.

Because I see value in exposing lies.

I'll give credit where credit is due, Wei got this one and he got it right.

It's been argued that at this moment, Jesus was forsaken by God, which effectively means that in this radical moment, God was separated from himself. This is a crucial moment because Man's condition is defined by his own radical separation from God, and it becomes this very separation from God which unites us with God, because through Christ, that very separation itself becomes the bridge.

Win.

While so far, I haven't really been tempted to violate the conditions of my ban, I just have to for this thread - don't worry, its unlikely I'll posting anywhere else anytime soon (or at all).

On choosing Hell - Hell is, by definition, a place where nobody will be better off. Heaven is, by definition, a place where everybody will be better off.

Nobody who is reasoning properly and informed of all the facts about the true consequences of choosing Hell, could actually choose Hell over Heaven. Choosing Hell would be as fundamentally self-destructive and irrational as it would be to choose to stab oneself in the face, repeatedly, for no reason.

What about free will? Well, its extremely doubtful free will is so valuable in its own right, that it's violation would be worse than choosing Hell freely. The free will defense is at odds with everything we believe about common-sense morality. Why people readily swallow this idea without questioning, as if it explains everything, really puzzles me.

Would it be morally acceptable, for example, to let a child refuse his vaccinations because he was deathly afraid of needles, in the interest of preserving his free will? Of course not. The violation of his free will is trivial, compared with the consequences to his greater good.

We'd all generally agree that it would be better if this child could be made to fully understand why it was important that he suffer the discomfort of a few needle pricks, and would go forward willingly, but in the event that he can't be made to understand, we force him anyway. If free will were so important, we wouldn't.

In fact, it's considered morally negligent NOT to violate his free will in this instance.

So it seems that choosing hell, entails one or both of the following conditions in the choosing agent:

a) One is so fundamentally irrational, that he would be accurately called insane.
b) One is ignorant of certain facts or reasoning improperly, and so cannot comprehend the consequences of his choice.

Both of those conditions are maladies that an all-powerful being can reasonably be expected to have the power to cure (unlike a college professor). And an all-good being would have the desire to cure them. But apparently Jesus either doesn't have the power, or the desire, or both. In fact, I think the above 2 conditions are essentially freedom limiting. They are actually constraints upon one's free will, and any choices made under their duress, are fundamentally non-free.

So there you have it - cute analogies about college professors aside - choosing Hell entails that one's free will is crucially limited - and even if one could freely choose Hell - allowing them to do so, if you had the power to prevent it, would be morally repugnant.

People choose hell, despite knowing the facts about it ,for the same reason the alcoholic chooses the next drink, the same reason the junkie chooses to shoot up again. Giving up what one one already knows for the unknown, no matter how beneficial as it may be, is scary. And maybe even beyond belief.

So, why are you not choosing to accept what God offers? Are you ill-informed? Or are you irrational? :D

~QC

burwil

12-19-2011, 11:45 PM

People choose hell, despite knowing the facts about it, for the same reason the alcoholic chooses the next drink, the same reason the junkie chooses to shoot up again. Giving up what one one already knows for the unknown, no matter how beneficial as it may be, is scary. And maybe even beyond belief.

Ok, so a person doesn't choose heaven - because maybe it scares him? Like our hypothetical child who doesn't choose vaccination because needles are scary? Is that right? If so, what's so great about that kind of "free choice"?!? Consider that question seriously, and let me know what you come up with.

My last post laid out the beginning of a case for at least two claims:

1) Hell cannot be a free choice, in any meaningful sense.

2) Its often morally evil to allow someone to make certain irrational, destructive choices if you have the power to stop them, and even if it means violating their free will

You're response kind of addresses (1)... sort of ((2) however, is not addressed). If one consistently chooses destructive addictions, I still contend either ignorance or physical dysfunction is involved (or both - of the kind that an all-powerful God could and would want to cure). Sure, maybe some addicts have encyclopedic knowledge of DARE program facts somewhere in their brains, or maybe some even have real word experience with the dangers of addiction too - but somewhere in there, some ignorant desires and visceral impulses do their work - they rationalize.. they excuse... and obscure truths, even truths the addict may know, somewhere in his addled brain. Whatever the causes of addictions, I don't think anything purely rational has any part. And if it isn't rational, it isn't free.

But what if I'm wrong, and the choice to go to hell can actually be a free choice?

Well, see (2). Interfering with free choices is morally acceptable - no - morally obligatory - in many cases, and I see no reason why it wouldn't be the morally good thing to do to violate one's free will if they chose hell. Again - by definition, Hell is objectively horrible - and by definition, heaven is objectively wonderful. There's not even any uncertainty there, as there is in the moral decisions we typically face. If you go to hell, you suffer horribly, if you go to heaven, you'll be blissful forever - full stop. No question about it. Most of us wouldn't balk a second to save a friend, a child, a loved one from a certain and horrible fate, even if it meant violating their free will.

Would it be morally wrong for God to cure somebody of their alcoholism? Would it be wrong for God to cure someone of their drug addiction? Would it be wrong for God to vaccinate an unwilling child? No?

Then why would it be wrong for God to refuse someone's choice to go to hell?

So, why are you not choosing to accept what God offers? Are you ill-informed? Or are you irrational? :D

Hey, if I found myself sitting outside some pearly gates when I die with an offer to live eternally in perfect bliss, I'd be pretty happy about it and gladly accept, and high five ya on the inside.

And if I somehow had a fit of insanity and refused such an offer, and if there was a loving God, who was the author of me, and who knew me better than I know myself - I hope he would act as great as he is described - and note that my "free will" (if it can be so called in such an instance) is of little consequence, and so shrugs off any temporary, ill-conceived rebellious sentiments I express, with a smile and open arms, and the knowledge that he is doing what is good for me. And - of course -he would do the same for Christopher Hitchens - or anybody else.

So, if the Hitch, or anybody else is *actually* in Hell - its surefire proof that the God of theism does not exist.

djones520

12-20-2011, 12:56 AM

People choose hell, despite knowing the facts about it ,for the same reason the alcoholic chooses the next drink, the same reason the junkie chooses to shoot up again. Giving up what one one already knows for the unknown, no matter how beneficial as it may be, is scary. And maybe even beyond belief.

So, why are you not choosing to accept what God offers? Are you ill-informed? Or are you irrational? :D

~QC

It's not choosing hell Cue. One would have to acknowledge it's existance before they could choose it.

To us it simply doesn't exist, it's not something to be afraid of. There is no afterlife, whether it be eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

That is our belief, and it's no less strong then your belief that there is. So when your trying to understand our point of view on it, look at it from your point of view.

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 01:22 AM

I'll give credit where credit is due, Wei got this one and he got it right.

No dice. If The Dumbest Story Ever Told is to be believed then God the Father did not forsake God the Son. God the Son may have felt forsaken while up on the cross, but the "truth" is that he wasn't forsaken... and so there was no sacrifice.

Wei Wu Wei

12-20-2011, 01:56 AM

It's not choosing hell Cue. One would have to acknowledge it's existance before they could choose it.

To us it simply doesn't exist, it's not something to be afraid of. There is no afterlife, whether it be eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

That is our belief, and it's no less strong then your belief that there is. So when your trying to understand our point of view on it, look at it from your point of view.

Well the idea isn't so much that a person directly chooses hell, it's that a person chooses to reject God, which leads to God withdrawing himself from the person, which is the experience of Hell.

Of course one would say that they cannot consciously choose to reject God if they have no evidence that God exists and no experience of God asking to be accepted in the first place. How can a person choose to reject God if they never see what they are supposedly rejecting?

The justification for this is that God is always present, divinity and the infinite are always present as the sublime nugget that underlies in every moment of existence. In this case, God is always already asking you to open yourself up to his kingdom, but a closed mind and closed heart are always overlooking it because the self is naturally self-focused and that clouds the presence of the divine.

djones520

12-20-2011, 02:02 AM

Well the idea isn't so much that a person directly chooses hell, it's that a person chooses to reject God, which leads to God withdrawing himself from the person, which is the experience of Hell.

Of course one would say that they cannot consciously choose to reject God if they have no evidence that God exists and no experience of God asking to be accepted in the first place. How can a person choose to reject God if they never see what they are supposedly rejecting?

The justification for this is that God is always present, divinity and the infinite are always present as the sublime nugget that underlies in every moment of existence. In this case, God is always already asking you to open yourself up to his kingdom, but a closed mind and closed heart are always overlooking it because the self is naturally self-focused and that clouds the presence of the divine.

I understand their justification of belief. The point I'm trying to get across is that you have to look at it from a differant way to understand our belief.

Wei Wu Wei

12-20-2011, 02:12 AM

I think it's pretty simple, it's the position of a rational skeptic.

You would only believe in things that you have empirical evidence for. There's no empirical evidence for God, Heaven or Hell. In fact, given how God is usually described, the concepts of heaven and hell don't make a lot of sense given our notions of good, evil, and justice.

The total lack of empirical evidence and personal experience lends itself towards disbelief. The standard position of the rational skeptic when presented with an extraordinary claim is to not believe it unless they are presented with evidence. Belief is a jump that requires something to support it, and without evidence, belief isn't simply a matter of choosing, it's impossible.

Is that a fair representation?

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 03:11 AM

Well the idea isn't so much that a person directly chooses hell, it's that a person chooses to reject God, which leads to God withdrawing himself from the person, which is the experience of Hell.

Of course one would say that they cannot consciously choose to reject God if they have no evidence that God exists and no experience of God asking to be accepted in the first place. How can a person choose to reject God if they never see what they are supposedly rejecting?

The justification for this is that God is always present, divinity and the infinite are always present as the sublime nugget that underlies in every moment of existence. In this case, God is always already asking you to open yourself up to his kingdom, but a closed mind and closed heart are always overlooking it because the self is naturally self-focused and that clouds the presence of the divine.

It really doesn't matter how the souls get into the lake of fire. The Bible is incoherent on that subject anyway. What matters is that once the souls are in the lake of fire, God does nothing for them... the souls he supposedly loves.

djones520

12-20-2011, 03:23 AM

It really doesn't matter how the souls get into the lake of fire. The Bible is incoherent on that subject anyway. What matters is that once the souls are in the lake of fire, God does nothing for them... the souls he supposedly loves.

You've got a lot of anger in you for something that you don't believe exists. I was like that once. I grew beyond it. You should try it out.

txradioguy

12-20-2011, 05:37 AM

You've got a lot of anger in you for something that you don't believe exists. I was like that once. I grew beyond it. You should try it out.

Like I pointed out...he and Nova and Wilbur aren't atheists they are anti-Theists...big difference.

AmPat

12-20-2011, 09:52 AM

No dice. If the Dumbest Story Ever Told is to be believed then God the Father did not forsake God the Son. God the Son may have felt forsaken while up on the cross, but the "truth" is that he wasn't forsaken... and so there was no sacrifice.

No dice. I choose the Bible over the Hootie. Unfortunately, when you have your Lazarus moment, it will be too late. I feel bad for you.

burwil

12-20-2011, 10:01 AM

You've got a lot of anger in you for something that you don't believe exists. I was like that once. I grew beyond it. You should try it out.

Well, in a rational world, any time Hell is mentioned with the words "just", "deserve", or even "choose" close by, it would be met with the same kind of "welcome" that CU might give a border-jumping, welfare queen, who brags about how many free abortions she's had on their taxpayer dollars and how many times she's been deported - instead of nods and solemn agreement as if something perfectly sane was said.

Of course, futile anger isnt really productive... one does need to learn to cope with such craziness... it is the world we live in, after all - and its not even the worst version of it (ie, see history)!

Bailey

12-20-2011, 10:03 AM

Well, in a rational world, any time Hell is mentioned with the words "just", "deserve", or even "choose" close by, it would be met with the same kind of "welcome" that CU might give a border-jumping, welfare queen, who brags about how many free abortions she's had on their taxpayer dollars and how many times she's been deported.

Of course, futile anger isnt really productive... one does need to learn to cope with such craziness... it is the world we live in, after all - and its not even the worst version of it (ie, see history)!

same old bullshit from you wilbur, I missed it....not.

BadCat

12-20-2011, 10:25 AM

Well, in a rational world, any time Hell is mentioned with the words "just", "deserve", or even "choose" close by, it would be met with the same kind of "welcome" that CU might give a border-jumping, welfare queen, who brags about how many free abortions she's had on their taxpayer dollars and how many times she's been deported - instead of nods and solemn agreement as if something perfectly sane was said.

Of course, futile anger isnt really productive... one does need to learn to cope with such craziness... it is the world we live in, after all - and its not even the worst version of it (ie, see history)!

Those aren't the only reasons we don't like you. Welcome back, prostate licker.

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 11:31 AM

You've got a lot of anger in you for something that you don't believe exists. I was like that once. I grew beyond it. You should try it out.

Try not to confuse my scathing criticism with anger.

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 11:36 AM

No dice. I choose the Bible over the Hootie. Unfortunately, when you have your Lazarus moment, it will be too late. I feel bad for you.

That's okay. Once you're in Heaven, where there is only eternal bliss, you won't have to feel bad about anyone spending eternity in Hell.

Novaheart

12-20-2011, 11:59 AM

There is no afterlife, whether it be eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

I believe in the eternal coherent energy which is self.

The other night I dreamed that my deceased Rottweiler brought me a puppy. She then returned to her new world. The puppy was a golden Skye terrier. I am keeping my eyes out.

AmPat

12-20-2011, 12:08 PM

That's okay. Once you're in Heaven, where there is only eternal bliss, you won't have to feel bad about anyone spending eternity in Hell.

This is the first thing you have ever been right about.

AmPat

12-20-2011, 12:10 PM

Try not to confuse my scathing criticism with anger.

If it were merely criticism based on opinion, there would be no "confusion." Since it is "scathing" criticism, we are correct to call it anger.

Bailey

12-20-2011, 12:26 PM

TNO once you start fighting the fallacy of AGW as hard as you fight the belief in God then and only then will I listen to your babble.

burwil

12-20-2011, 12:40 PM

TNO once you start fighting the fallacy of AGW as hard as you fight the belief in God then and only then will I listen to your babble.

Or, you could do the smart thing, and consider and deal with arguments as they are presented, even if you believe the arguer is wrong about some other unrelated things.

That's pretty much a requirement for any kind of reasonable discourse between mature adults - since its essentially true that everybody has some mistaken beliefs - even major ones.

Arroyo_Doble

12-20-2011, 12:50 PM

Or, you could do the smart thing, and consider and deal with arguments as they are presented, even if you believe the arguer is wrong about some other unrelated things.

That's pretty much a requirement for any kind of reasonable discourse between mature adults - since its essentially true that everybody has some mistaken beliefs - even major ones.

I don't believe you.

Bailey

12-20-2011, 12:52 PM

Or, you could do the smart thing, and consider and deal with arguments as they are presented, even if you believe the arguer is wrong about some other unrelated things.

That's pretty much a requirement for any kind of reasonable discourse between mature adults - since its essentially true that everybody has some mistaken beliefs - even major ones.

Listen Wilbur he said and I quote "he sees value in exposing lies" but one of the biggest lies is AGW but nary a peep do I hear from him about that. I only care for consistency from that douche. I don't want reasonable discourse from him. I am just pointing out how wrong he is. His arguments are not smart and I shall not waste my time arguing with him.

burwil

12-20-2011, 01:22 PM

Listen Wilbur he said and I quote "he sees value in exposing lies" but one of the biggest lies is AGW but nary a peep do I hear from him about that.

He is being consistent with himself - he doesnt think AGW is a lie, as you call it, and I'm sure he feels his reasons for believing for good reasons. Disagree all you like, but its really unrelated to the thread, and the issues being discussed.

Bailey

12-20-2011, 01:25 PM

I don't believe you.

Thats what I like about you AD you're consistent.

Bailey

12-20-2011, 01:28 PM

He is being consistent with himself - he doesnt think AGW is a lie, as you call it, and I'm sure he feels his reasons for believing for good reasons. Disagree all you like, but its really unrelated to the thread, and the issues being discussed.

No I disagree with you and I shall keep pointing out his double standards.

burwil

12-20-2011, 01:33 PM

No I disagree with you and I shall keep pointing out his double standards.

Its not a double-standard to be inconsistent with somebody else's beliefs. What, you don't agree with everything I believe? Well stop with the double-standards you hypocrite!

Bailey

12-20-2011, 01:39 PM

Its not a double-standard to be inconsistent with somebody else's beliefs. What, you don't agree with everything I believe? Well stop with the double-standards you hypocrite!

I dont care what his beliefs are, I only care that he states that he wants to stomp out lies, well he believes in the biggest lie ever told. (AGW) I just wish he would speak out against that like he speaks out against relegion.

On a related note, hes believes all religion is phooey but he is a full member of the newest ones out there. (global climate change or global warming or whatever they are calling it this week)

burwil

12-20-2011, 01:48 PM

I dont care what his beliefs are, I only care that he states that he wants to stomp out lies, well he believes in the biggest lie ever told. (AGW) I just wish he would speak out against that like he speaks out against relegion.

It's really the only the "biggest lie ever told" according to people who are, on the whole, not anymore trustworthy than the scientists they are constantly accusing of being corrupt and deceptive.

Bailey

12-20-2011, 01:52 PM

It's really the only the "biggest lie ever told" according to people who are, on the whole, not anymore trustworthy than the scientists they are constantly accusing of being corrupt and deceptive.

Dont you find it odd that he likes to stomp out lies but AGW (the biggest lie and con job ever) he doesnt touch?

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 01:55 PM

This is the first thing you have ever been right about.

Yep. I'll just be curious to see how the elect maintain a cheery disposition while family members and friends who didn't make the cut are suffering unimaginably. Will they be able to shrug it off and lose themselves in the music of the harps?

Bailey

12-20-2011, 01:56 PM

Yep. I'll just be curious to see how the elect maintain a cheery disposition after finding out that certain family members and friends who didn't make the cut are suffering unimaginably. Will they be able to shrug it off and lose themselves in the music of the harps?

Basically yes.

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 02:04 PM

Basically yes.

Wow! That's cold. I know I wouldn't be able to be happy knowing that family and friends are burning. Maybe you're bluffing for the sake of argument?

Bailey

12-20-2011, 02:07 PM

Wow! That's cold. I know I wouldn't be able to be happy knowing that family and friends are burning. Maybe you're bluffing for the sake of argument?

No I'm not, you made your choice you live (pardon the pun) it

burwil

12-20-2011, 02:12 PM

No I'm not, you made your choice you live (pardon the pun) it

Just like the child who refused vaccinations made his choice?

Bailey

12-20-2011, 02:14 PM

Just like the child who refused vaccinations made his choice?

What does that have to do with an adult rejecting God?

burwil

12-20-2011, 02:20 PM

What does that have to do with an adult rejecting God?

See my post:

Nobody who is reasoning properly and informed of all the facts about the true consequences of choosing Hell, could actually choose Hell over Heaven. Choosing Hell would be as fundamentally self-destructive and irrational as it would be to choose to stab oneself in the face, repeatedly, for no reason.

What about free will? Well, its extremely doubtful free will is so valuable in its own right, that it's violation would be worse than choosing Hell freely. The free will defense is at odds with everything we believe about common-sense morality. Why people readily swallow this idea without questioning, as if it explains everything, really puzzles me.

Would it be morally acceptable, for example, to let a child refuse his vaccinations because he was deathly afraid of needles, in the interest of preserving his free will? Of course not. The violation of his free will is trivial, compared with the consequences to his greater good.

We'd all generally agree that it would be better if this child could be made to fully understand why it was important that he suffer the discomfort of a few needle pricks, and would go forward willingly, but in the event that he can't be made to understand, we force him anyway. If free will were so important, we wouldn't.

In fact, it's considered morally negligent NOT to violate his free will in this instance.

So it seems that choosing hell, entails one or both of the following conditions in the choosing agent:

a) One is so fundamentally irrational, that he would be accurately called insane.
b) One is ignorant of certain facts or reasoning improperly, and so cannot comprehend the consequences of his choice.

Both of those conditions are maladies that an all-powerful being can reasonably be expected to have the power to cure (unlike a college professor). And an all-good being would have the desire to cure them. But apparently Jesus either doesn't have the power, or the desire, or both. In fact, I think the above 2 conditions are essentially freedom limiting. They are actually constraints upon one's free will, and any choices made under their duress, are fundamentally non-free.

So there you have it - cute analogies about college professors aside - choosing Hell entails that one's free will is crucially limited - and even if one could freely choose Hell - allowing them to do so, if you had the power to prevent it, would be morally repugnant.

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 03:46 PM

No I'm not, you made your choice you live (pardon the pun) it

I can live with my choices. I just wonder how parents, for example, can enjoy Heaven while a son or daughter burns for eternity. The good news is that Heaven and Hell don't exist, but it is fun to point out how evil and stupid the whole concept is.

Rockntractor

12-20-2011, 03:50 PM

I can live with my choices. I just wonder how parents, for example, can enjoy Heaven while a son or daughter burns for eternity. The good news is that none of it is true, but it is fun to point out how evil and stupid the whole concept is.

What is evil?:confused:

Arroyo_Doble

12-20-2011, 03:56 PM

What is evil?:confused:

Evil = 1 / Empathy

Rockntractor

12-20-2011, 04:04 PM

Evil = 1 / Empathy
I have never heard an atheist refer to evil.:confused:

Molon Labe

12-20-2011, 04:07 PM

I can live with my choices. I just wonder how parents, for example, can enjoy Heaven while a son or daughter burns for eternity. The good news is that none of it is true, but it is fun to point out how evil and stupid the whole concept is.

People who are atheists cannot prove that there is God anymore than believers can prove there is.

I would imagine that if God exists....which I believe he does....that an omnipotent's logic would be much higher than our own. (kind of like my dog not understanding my need to sit at the internets all day).

My understanding of Heaven and Hell works like this.

God is a perfect being. Therefore Imperfection does not equal God. The two cannot live in the presence of one another, else one is destroyed. If God is a perfect being and omnipotent, then imperfection must be destroyed in his presence. If sinful man is not made in perfection by God or Christ or whatever you believe, then that sin must be seperated from God. Hell is seperation from God.

I'm not saying you'll believe in any of this...but it makes as much logical sense as the atheists who try to prove there version of nothingness.

txradioguy

12-20-2011, 04:08 PM

Its not a double-standard to be inconsistent with somebody else's beliefs. What, you don't agree with everything I believe? Well stop with the double-standards you hypocrite!

Only someone as spineless as you could contort yourself in such a way to rationalize what you just said.

ABC in Georgia

12-20-2011, 04:24 PM

Quote from TNO to Bailey

Yep. I'll just be curious to see how the elect maintain a cheery disposition while family members and friends who didn't make the cut are suffering unimaginably. Will they be able to shrug it off and lose themselves in the music of the harps?

Basically yes.

Originally Posted by The Night Owl
Wow! That's cold. I know I wouldn't be able to be happy knowing that family and friends are burning. Maybe you're bluffing for the sake of argument?

Bailey ...

Going back on my word somewhat, at least, not to come back in ...

The thing TNO and others like him don't realize is that we believe that no matter what good things even family and friends have done in their lives, (and yes, atheists too) ... that is not the way to get into heaven.

I don't know how best to put it into simple words, but will try!

God does not choose *us,* we must choose to take *Him* into our lives, in order to go to heaven. I don't have time to google the verse I want from the Bible but that should hopefully get the point across.

Regards ~ ABC

burwil

12-20-2011, 04:29 PM

People who are atheists cannot prove that there is God anymore than believers can prove there is.

I would imagine that if God exists....which I believe he does....that an omnipotent's logic would be much higher than our own. (kind of like my dog not understanding my need to sit at the internets all day).

My understanding of Heaven and Hell works like this.

God is a perfect being. Therefore Imperfection does not equal God. The two cannot live in the presence of one another, else one is destroyed. If God is a perfect being and omnipotent, then imperfection must be destroyed in his presence. If sinful man is not made in perfection by God or Christ or whatever you believe, then that sin must be seperated from God. Hell is seperation from God.

I'm not saying you'll believe in any of this...but it makes as much logical sense as the atheists who try to prove there version of nothingness.

I don't really agree with this. Once one makes some concrete claims about what a thing is, whether its God or the weather, one can examine the coherence of those concepts, to see whether they are logically compatible with one another. The problem of Hell poses a very real problem for the internal coherence of Christian theism - to such a degree that one has to go - either Hell goes, or God goes. I don't really think it gets any plainer - one has to have a funny definition of "all-good" to think being perfectly good is compatible with people suffering in torment for eternity.

Furthermore, if the concept has internal coherence (ie, it is not logically impossible), then we can begin to ask ourselves certain questions about what we might expect, IF this concept were true, or real - such as, what would a world look like if an all-good, all-powerful being created it. Investigations of this sort will never yield logically provable conclusions, in the deductive sense - but they can yield probabilistic, inductive conclusions - that is, what is most probably true. The evidential problem of evil, for example, is this kind of examination - and these types of investigations can definitely lead us strongly in one direction or the other - that God probably exists, or probably doesnt.

Arroyo_Doble

12-20-2011, 04:29 PM

Bailey ...

Going back on my word somewhat, at least, not to come back in ...

The thing TNO and others like him don't realize is that we believe that no matter what good things even family and friends have done in their lives, (and yes, atheists too) ... that is not the way to get into heaven.

I don't know how best to put it into simple words, but will try!

God does not choose *us,* we must choose to take *Him* into our lives, in order to go to heaven. I don't have time to google the verse I want from the Bible but that should hopefully get the point across.

Regards ~ ABC

John 14:6, probably.

burwil

12-20-2011, 04:31 PM

Only someone as spineless as you could contort yourself in such a way to rationalize what you just said.

I do hope you realize that the last part was tongue-in-cheek..

Bailey

12-20-2011, 04:49 PM

Everyone thinks of Hell as fire and torture etc but all it is being forever separated from God. I really couldn't care if Wilbur or TNO believe or not thats on their souls, oh TNO when you die and stand before God make sure you bring up vaccines and see if that flies with him.

TNO you really have balls to accuse members of one relegion of believing in a false God while you bow in front of the alter of false ido. l

burwil

12-20-2011, 05:18 PM

Everyone thinks of Hell as fire and torture etc but all it is being forever separated from God.

Which, according most theories, is just a nicer way to say eternal torment, often to placate those who experience some pangs of conscience about the whole thing - its rather immaterial whether hell is actual fire and brimstone. At its most mild, it means being annihilated and missing out on eternal bliss. But even in that case, I'd argue that the main thrust of my points still hold.

I mean really... if Hell is what people actually want or would choose if they knew all the facts and were acting reasonably - how can you even still tell them they ought to follow God? They ought not too, so they can end up where they would be most happy. Kind of undermines the whole deal..

Wei Wu Wei

12-20-2011, 05:33 PM

Quote from TNO to Bailey

Bailey ...

Going back on my word somewhat, at least, not to come back in ...

The thing TNO and others like him don't realize is that we believe that no matter what good things even family and friends have done in their lives, (and yes, atheists too) ... that is not the way to get into heaven.

I don't know how best to put it into simple words, but will try!

God does not choose *us,* we must choose to take *Him* into our lives, in order to go to heaven. I don't have time to google the verse I want from the Bible but that should hopefully get the point across.

Regards ~ ABC

What I think they are trying to say is that heaven is impossible because it's supposed to be perfect, but how can it be perfect when your loved ones are suffering in eternal torment?

The argument is, if you really love your loved ones, then heaven can't be heaven if they aren't with you.

Wei Wu Wei

12-20-2011, 05:38 PM

People who are atheists cannot prove that there is God anymore than believers can prove there is.

I would imagine that if God exists....which I believe he does....that an omnipotent's logic would be much higher than our own. (kind of like my dog not understanding my need to sit at the internets all day).

My understanding of Heaven and Hell works like this.

God is a perfect being. Therefore Imperfection does not equal God. The two cannot live in the presence of one another, else one is destroyed. If God is a perfect being and omnipotent, then imperfection must be destroyed in his presence. If sinful man is not made in perfection by God or Christ or whatever you believe, then that sin must be seperated from God. Hell is seperation from God.

I'm not saying you'll believe in any of this...but it makes as much logical sense as the atheists who try to prove there version of nothingness.

I think we should consider that the human (more specifically , middle age and enlightenment -era ) conceptions of perfection may be limited.

There's a tricky issue here with the issues of limitlessness, eternity, and perfection.

Limitlessness has no boundaries, but the type of perfection that you are describing does. There is an issue with describing God as being absolute and infinite, but at the same time with a firm boundary with regards to perfection/imperfection.

It's sort of like the classical question of how evil exists if God created everything. It's said that humans and satan create sin on their own, but if God created man and satan, and if God is Absolute, then how is sin possible at all? How could these beings act in such a way that was against God, if God encompasses everything and created everything?

Interesting questions.

Wei Wu Wei

12-20-2011, 05:50 PM

I don't really agree with this. Once one makes some concrete claims about what a thing is, whether its God or the weather, one can examine the coherence of those concepts, to see whether they are logically compatible with one another.

Is it possible that the claims about what God is are not actually definitions or descriptions, but more like pointing in the direction of a concept which cannot be put into a word or a thought?

Yes it's true once we define a concept, we can use logic to trace it's soundness within a system of other concepts, but that is only the case if we assume that the concept we are using is an actual representation of the thing-in-itself.

Perhaps the words and descriptions used to describe God are more akin to poetic expressions of something that is inconceivable. Or perhaps these concepts address qualities of God, but do not contain them. It would be as if we can describe God but there's always more there that escapes our description.

Whether God cannot be fully described or is in fact fully inconceivable, either way it would prevent fitting God into a logical system like you describe.

Also, why should we expect our logic to perfectly map a system without any inconsistencies? In any system of thought, regardless what it is, there are always going to be places where concepts don't fit together properly. Our conceptual frameworks, be they religious or political or social or whatever, are like giant puzzles but the pieces never fit together properly. That's not unusual in fact I would argue that it's a structural necessity for having language-based conceptual thoughts.

Basically what I'm saying is, there's no reason to expect all the pieces of a conceptual network to fit together properly. Especially if you are very rigid about defining them using necessarily limiting concepts. I wonder why you view these inconsistencies to be so important?

The problem of Hell poses a very real problem for the internal coherence of Christian theism - to such a degree that one has to go - either Hell goes, or God goes. I don't really think it gets any plainer - one has to have a funny definition of "all-good" to think being perfectly good is compatible with people suffering in torment for eternity.

You're putting too much stock in your idea of "internal coherence". There is no such thing.

In fact, I would go as far as to suggest this isn't just a facet of our internal mental lives, that we can never use limited human concepts to match the harmony of the universe. I would submit that reality itself isn't internally coherent. The idea that the universe is an ordered, harmonious, functioning place that we just have to work really hard to understand is a relic of a different time. It's possible that the universe itself is simply not internally coherent or consistent.

Furthermore, if the concept has internal coherence (ie, it is not logically impossible),

You're not going to find it. If you really break down each concecpt in search of internal coherence you will always find yourself in a place of pure tautology. A is A ends up losing all meaning. A system that is truly internally coherent closes in on itself into an autistic loop of pure self-reference. The system breaks down and all meaning goes away.

A can never be just A. There needs to be a gap between A and A' to sustain any meaning whatsoever.

then we can begin to ask ourselves certain questions about what we might expect, IF this concept were true, or real - such as, what would a world look like if an all-good, all-powerful being created it. Investigations of this sort will never yield logically provable conclusions, in the deductive sense - but they can yield probabilistic, inductive conclusions - that is, what is most probably true. The evidential problem of evil, for example, is this kind of examination - and these types of investigations can definitely lead us strongly in one direction or the other - that God probably exists, or probably doesnt.

I'm not arguing entirely against your method, I think it's a very useful and good method for reflection and logical thought. I just think that if you carry it all the way out, you'll see it's limits. It's good as a tool for working with concepts, but not as a representation of Truth.

CueSi

12-20-2011, 08:19 PM

It's not choosing hell Cue. One would have to acknowledge it's existance before they could choose it.

To us it simply doesn't exist, it's not something to be afraid of. There is no afterlife, whether it be eternal glory, or eternal damnation.

That is our belief, and it's no less strong then your belief that there is. So when your trying to understand our point of view on it, look at it from your point of view.

But then this is where I say something cute about gravity, you say I'ts not the same, I declare jihad on you and burn the foum down. :D

But I opened my Strongbow, so I'll just say that if more atheists were like you, people would be more honest with their doubts and/or lack of belief; cause wilbur and TNO make me want to go to church and have long, chaste lunches with upstanding Christian gentlemen.

~QC

burwil

12-20-2011, 09:26 PM

But then this is where I say something cute about gravity, you say I'ts not the same, I declare jihad on you and burn the foum down. :D

But I opened my Strongbow,so I'll just say that if more atheists were like you, people would be more honest with their doubts and/or lack of belief; cause wilbur and TNO make me want to go to church and have long, chaste lunches with upstanding Christian gentlemen.

~QC

Hmm... I wonder... What do people like AmPat, Baily, JB or TxRadioGuy make you want to do?

The Night Owl

12-20-2011, 09:47 PM

God does not choose *us,* we must choose to take *Him* into our lives, in order to go to heaven. I don't have time to google the verse I want from the Bible but that should hopefully get the point across.

Regards ~ ABC

What you're saying may or may not be correct but it's not Biblical. The Bible teaches of a Book of Life which contains the names of the elect-- those who will be spared from eternal torment in the lake of fire. And so choices are irrelevant because the Book of Life is already written. In other words, God made each of us knowing where we would end up in the afterlife.

MrsSmith

12-20-2011, 11:03 PM

That's right. If the Bible is to be believed, God sent Christopher Hitchens to an eternity of suffering in Hell... because he loves him.

:rotfl:No, Hitchens sent himself to Hell. All he had to do was choose correctly for one second in those 62 years.

MrsSmith

12-20-2011, 11:07 PM

What you're saying may or may not be correct but it's not Biblical. The Bible teaches of a Book of Life which contains the names of the elect-- those who will be spared from eternal torment in the lake of fire. And so choices are irrelevant because the Book of Life is already written. In other words, God made each of us knowing where we would end up in the afterlife.

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

ABC in Georgia

12-20-2011, 11:13 PM

What I think they are trying to say is that heaven is impossible because it's supposed to be perfect, but how can it be perfect when your loved ones are suffering in eternal torment?

The argument is, if you really love your loved ones, then heaven can't be heaven if they aren't with you.

Taking a page out of Bill Clinton's book ... depends on what their meaning of the word "heaven" is. :)

We mortals did not create it, nor did we make the rules for entering it.

Problem is, that each must follow their own path. Is nothing we can do if they have chosen to reject God's promise ... and we didn't.

The best we can hope for, is that they will change their minds before they die.

~ ABC

CueSi

12-21-2011, 12:07 AM

Hmm... I wonder... What do people like AmPat, Baily, JB or TxRadioGuy make you want to do?

Make me want to tolerate you.

But then TNO goes into his 'greatest lie ever told' bs and then I really want to get into the Word and tell even more people to opening up into experiencing God, and Tim Tebow starts looking good to me, and I ponder converting to Catholicism.

Push me hard enough, I'll do the ex-gay thing. And become a missonary. :p

~QC

Odysseus

12-21-2011, 12:52 AM

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: You cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, but you can choose to believe or not believe. The choice, and how you exhibit it, tells us far more about you than it does about the universe and its composition.

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 12:57 AM

He that overcometh, the same shall be clothed in white raiment; and I will not blot out his name out of the book of life, but I will confess his name before my Father, and before his angels.

Your point?

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 01:00 AM

No, Hitchens sent himself to Hell. All he had to do was choose correctly for one second in those 62 years.

Do you really think it says something good about your religion that one's final destination for all of eternity can be decided in one second?

Rockntractor

12-21-2011, 01:07 AM

Do you really think it says something good about your religion that one's final destination for all of eternity can be decided in one second?

Yep. I'll just be curious to see how the elect maintain a cheery disposition while family members and friends who didn't make the cut are suffering unimaginably. Will they be able to shrug it off and lose themselves in the music of the harps?

I don't know where you get "harps" Skippy, but the Bible does tell us there will be no tears in Heaven. I guess your Theology is a little lacking? No surprise there.:rolleyes:

AmPat

12-21-2011, 11:12 AM

I can live with my choices. I just wonder how parents, for example, can enjoy Heaven while a son or daughter burns for eternity. The good news is that Heaven and Hell don't exist, but it is fun to point out how evil and stupid the whole concept is.

Take that argument to your final judgement. Maybe God will make you the sole exception just because you are so sincere and have such a superior intellect.:rolleyes:

AmPat

12-21-2011, 11:18 AM

Hmm... I wonder... What do people like AmPat, Baily, JB or TxRadioGuy make you want to do?

If I am hated for what I read in the Bible, Jesus covered that as well. He told us (In the Bible!!!:eek:) that we would be hated for his namesake. I am perfectly comfortable with that. ;)

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 11:27 AM

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: You cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, but you can choose to believe or not believe. The choice, and how you exhibit it, tells us far more about you than it does about the universe and its composition.

How do you choose to believe?

You either believe something or you do not. That is the problem I have always had with Pascal's Wager. God, being omnipotent, would see through the cynical hedge; He would be able to recognize genuine faith as opposed to superficial machinations and hollow rituals.

AmPat

12-21-2011, 11:34 AM

How do you choose to believe?

You either believe something or you do not. That is the problem I have always had with Pascal's Wager. God, being omnipotent, would see through the cynical hedge; He would be able to recognize genuine faith as opposed to superficial machinations and hollow rituals.

Start by seeking. He said, "seek and you will find." It would cost you nothing and will gain you everything. Honesty is not a problem with you. Lee Stroble was an honest atheist and went seeking. He sought to disprove the existence of God and that Jesus was the Christ. He came out of his search as a Christian. CS Lewis was the same.

Do you have the courage to do likewise?

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 11:39 AM

Start by seeking. He said, "seek and you will find." It would cost you nothing and will gain you everything. Honesty is not a problem with you. Lee Stroble was an honest atheist and went seeking. He sought to disprove the existence of God and that Jesus was the Christ. He came out of his search as a Christian. CS Lewis was the same.

Do you have the courage to do likewise?

I am not an Atheist.

I like C.S. Lewis, by the way. I have all his works. The Screwtape Letters is fantastic.

burwil

12-21-2011, 11:48 AM

How do you choose to believe?

Yea, that's weird isnt it? I doubt few here could just choose to become a liberal tomorrow.

Best I can unpack it, it really means something like:

"I don't have enough information to really determine if any in a given set of beliefs are true, so instead of remaining agnostic about them (as would be most reasonable), I am just going to pick the one that is most appealing to me, and act as if it were true."

Bizarre indeed.

Rockntractor

12-21-2011, 11:53 AM

Yea, that's weird isnt it? I doubt few here could just choose to become a liberal tomorrow.

Best I can unpack it, it really means something like:

"I don't have enough information to really determine if any in a given set of beliefs are true, so instead of remaining agnostic about them (as would be most reasonable), I am just going to pick the one that is most appealing to me, and act as if it were true."

Bizarre indeed.
Merry Christmas Burwil!:)

burwil

12-21-2011, 11:58 AM

Start by seeking. He said, "seek and you will find." It would cost you nothing and will gain you everything. Honesty is not a problem with you. Lee Stroble was an honest atheist and went seeking. He sought to disprove the existence of God and that Jesus was the Christ. He came out of his search as a Christian. CS Lewis was the same.

Do you have the courage to do likewise?

This doctrine is best assumed falsified, since we have plenty of personal testimonials from people who did seek, and did not find. I know plenty of atheists who came by their atheism from the "seekers path" so-to-speak, searching for genuine spiritual answers to all the deep questions.

The typical response is to say, "Well they didn't seek hard enough" or "Their hearts or minds were closed", etc, etc - which all boil down to ad hominem attacks. Not to mention, they are the kinds of claims about the internal lives of others, that no one is really in a position to make, other than the "failed seeker" in question.

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 12:02 PM

Yea, that's weird isnt it? I doubt few here could just choose to become a liberal tomorrow.

Best I can unpack it, it really means something like:

"I don't have enough information to really determine if any in a given set of beliefs are true, so instead of remaining agnostic about them (as would be most reasonable), I am just going to pick the one that is most appealing to me, and act as if it were true."

Bizarre indeed.

That sounds like the Atheist who is unwilling to accept the logical conclusion of their philosophy: Solipsism.

Novaheart

12-21-2011, 12:17 PM

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: You cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God .......

That's true. However, religion and God are not synonymous and we do have considerable knowledge about the origins of religions, religious artifacts, texts, religious history, and the context in which these religions were born or crafted.

Using Buddhism as an example to avoid local emotionalism:
We know who Siddhartha Gautama was, when he was born and when he died.
His life and works are very well documented.
We also know that he did not claim to be a god or to represent a god.
He deliberately had an audience at his death bed because he knew human nature would be to deify him. (and indeed some Buddhists think of him as godlike)
We know that Buddhism has pieces of other religions and philosophies.
We know that Buddhism had an evangelical phase which happened curiously at the time and place that the "wise men came from the east" to Bethlehem.
We know that some Buddhism is considered "pure" and other forms are hybrids of doctrine or culture to include coherent spirits, both saintly and mischievous.
We know about Buddhism's roots in Hinduism and adding a surprisingly astute but primitive understanding of physics.

We know all this stuff about Buddhism, and none of it confirms whether the basic beliefs about life after death are true or not. In fact, there is some disagreement about whether Buddhism is actually a religion or a philosophy. Few people argue against Buddhism, somehow it gets a pass in the "my religion is great and yours sucks" wars. I think because Buddhism projects, to a greater or lesser degree of accuracy, the more universal principles of human decency at least claimed by other religions.

Buddhism is a tough religion. It doesn't have all the loopholes of Abrahamic religions. Each man answers to a much less forgiving master: truth and self. Middle Eastern gods have conditions on their rules and exceptions to them. It's wrong to enslave, kill, or charge interest to your own people, but it's allowable on strangers or certain conditions. In Buddhism, wrong is always wrong.

Buddhism has no Hell. The price you pay for imperfection is repetition. In other words, we are in "hell" now, and if we don't clean up our act, we will have to do it over again.

PS: Some Buddhist sects feature the belief that "The Buddha was born of a virgin mother". Some sociologists have no doubt about the role of Vedics and Buddhists on Abrahamic religion.

FROM WIKI:

Queen Māyā and King Suddhodhana did not have children for twenty years into their marriage. According to legend, One full moon night, sleeping in the palace, the queen had a vivid dream. She felt herself being carried away by four devas (spirits) to Lake Anotatta in the Himalayas. After bathing her in the lake, the devas clothed her in heavenly cloths, anointed her with perfumes, and bedecked her with divine flowers. Soon after a white elephant, holding a white lotus flower in its trunk, appeared and went round her three times, entering her womb through her right side. Finally the elephant disappeared and the queen awoke, knowing she had been delivered an important message, as the elephant is a symbol of greatness in Nepal[1]. According to Buddhist tradition, the Buddha-to-be was residing as a Bodhisattva, in the Tuṣita heaven, and decided to take the shape of a white elephant to be reborn on Earth for the last time. Māyā gave birth to Siddharta c. 563 BCE. The pregnancy lasted ten lunar months. Following custom, the Queen returned to her own home for the birth. On the way, she stepped down from her palanquin to have a walk under the Sal tree (Shorea robusta), often confused with the Ashoka tree (Saraca asoca), in the beautiful flower garden of Lumbini Park, Lumbini Zone, Nepal. Maya Devi was delighted by the park and gave birth standing while holding onto a sal branch. Legend has it that Prince Siddhārtha emerged from her right side. It was the eighth day of April. Some accounts say she gave him his first bath in the Puskarini pond in Lumbini Zone. But legend has it that devas caused it to rain to wash the newborn babe. He was later named Siddhārtha, "He who has accomplished his goals" or "The accomplished goal".

Research in Wisdom Quarterly: American Buddhist Journal[citation needed] shows that the details of the legendary account coincide exactly with the existing Indian mythology of fertility goddesses, Salabhanjikas, "breaking a branch of a Sala tree"), often depicted standing against trees with one leg bent up and one hand holding a branch. They are believed to be virginal and capable of making a tree bear flowers. Parallels to this myth may survive in early Christianity: according to the Dead Sea Scrolls, the chaste or "virgin" Mary was a much older woman who miraculously conceived of a child by the intervention of the Holy Spirit of Jehovah (See Luke 1:35).

Queen Māyā died seven days after the birth of the Buddha-to-be Bodhisatta and was reborn in the Tavatimsa Heaven, where the Buddha later preached the Abhidharma to her. Her sister Prajāpatī (Pāli: Pajāpatī or Mahāpajāpatī Gotamī) became the child's foster mother.

After Prince Siddhartha had attained perfection and become the Buddha, he visited his mother in heaven for three months to pay respects and to teach the Dharma.

[edit]Religious parallels

See also: Syncretism and Christianized myths and imagery
Referring to the prophetic dream Queen Maya had prior to conception, some versions of the life story of the Buddha say that he was conceived without sexual activity. This interpretation has led to parallels being drawn with the birth story of Jesus.

The story of the birth of the Buddha was known in the West, and possibly influenced the story of the birth of Jesus. Saint Jerome (4th century CE) mentions the birth of the Buddha, who he says "was born from the side of a virgin".[2] Also a fragment of Archelaos of Carrha (278 CE) mentions the Buddha's virgin-birth.

Other parallels in the birth stories include:

The similarity in the sounds of the names of Mary (Aramaic: מרים, Maryām) and Maya.
Maya conceived during a dream, Mary conceived around the time of a visitation from an angel.
Both women gave birth "outside" of a home.
Heavenly wonders appeared in the sky.
Heavenly beings (angels or devas; or in some Mahayana traditions, Samantabhadra) announcing the newborn as "savior" of the world.
Sages came to visit the newborn and make prophecies of auspicious careers.
There are also parallels between the Buddha being born of Maya and the Greek messenger god Hermes being born of a mother with a similar name, the goddess Maia, since Hermes is associated with the planet Mercury, a planet called Budha in Sanskrit.

[edit]

burwil

12-21-2011, 12:18 PM

That sounds like the Atheist who is unwilling to accept the logical conclusion of their philosophy: Solipsism.

Solipsism isnt a logical conclusion of anything, since its incoherent.

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 12:27 PM

Solipsism isnt a logical conclusion of anything, since its incoherent.

Cogito ergo sum.

Anything beyond that is questionable. Even that has a few holes.

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 01:20 PM

I don't know where you get "harps" Skippy, but the Bible does tell us there will be no tears in Heaven. I guess your Theology is a little lacking? No surprise there.:rolleyes:

Harps or no harps, I'm still wondering how there can be no tears in Heaven while unimaginable suffering is going on in Hell. It seems to me that the love of the elect is not worth anything if the suffering of their loved ones fails to move them to tears.

BadCat

12-21-2011, 01:27 PM

All you worthless libs sound like YOUR GOD just died.

Atheist hypocrites.

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 01:28 PM

Ultimately, it all comes down to this: You cannot prove the existence or nonexistence of God, but you can choose to believe or not believe. The choice, and how you exhibit it, tells us far more about you than it does about the universe and its composition.

The nonexistence of God can't be proven in an absolute sense but it can be proven in a practical sense and to the same extent that the nonexistence of werewolves, for example, can be proven.

On nights when the moon is full, do you ever find yourself worrying about werewolves? Of course not. You don't worry about werewolves because their nonexistence is practically proven. And the same goes for God, Heaven, and Hell. Why should anyone spend even a second of time worrying about such nonsense?

Wei Wu Wei

12-21-2011, 01:52 PM

Solipsism isnt a logical conclusion of anything, since its incoherent.

Incoherency is often a logical conclusion. Your statement here illustrates what appears to be a believe that logic is perfect, or at least harmonious.

it's almost as if you believe that if you start with a set of logical propositions, you can move to the next one logically, and the next one, until (with enough time, information and logical prowess) all of reality is understood.

You are making a pretty big jump in belief here by assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that matches human deduction.

Wei Wu Wei

12-21-2011, 02:00 PM

Cogito ergo sum.

Anything beyond that is questionable. Even that has a few holes.

Yes. Hell if you really break it down, simply cogito is unfounded.

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 02:03 PM

Yes. Hell if you really break it down, simply cogito is unfounded.

My favorite is cogito ergo est .... I think therefore you is.

ABC in Georgia

12-21-2011, 02:04 PM

Yes. Hell if you really break it down, simply cogito is unfounded.

Especially when applied to Libs! :D

~ ABC

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 02:31 PM

"I don't have enough information to really determine if any in a given set of beliefs are true, so instead of remaining agnostic about them (as would be most reasonable), I am just going to pick the one that is most appealing to me, and act as if it were true."

I suspect your description describes 99% of all Christians.

burwil

12-21-2011, 03:45 PM

Incoherency is often a logical conclusion. Your statement here illustrates what appears to be a believe that logic is perfect, or at least harmonious.

it's almost as if you believe that if you start with a set of logical propositions, you can move to the next one logically, and the next one, until (with enough time, information and logical prowess) all of reality is understood.

You are making a pretty big jump in belief here by assuming that the universe is ordered in such a way that matches human deduction.

The very use of language, Wei, requires an ascent to the harmony of logical relations and coherence - after all, words and their definitions are bona fide logical equivalences.

To the extent that you feel you can actually communicate anything to us at all, is a tribute to the harmony of logic. Trying to undermine all that using words is like trying to put out a fire by using a flamethrower.

Zathras

12-21-2011, 04:05 PM

I suspect your description describes 99% of all Christians.

It applies even more to liberals and globull warming cultists like you. :D

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 04:09 PM

I suspect your description describes 99% of all Christians.

Everyone chooses their delusion, I suppose.

Wei Wu Wei

12-21-2011, 04:13 PM

The very use of language, Wei, requires an ascent to the harmony of logical relations and coherence - after all, words and their definitions are bona fide logical equivalences.

There's always a surplus of meaning that isn't captured by the word or the definition. The correlation isn't 1 to 1.

There is always a gap between what is said and what is meant, this gap is a necessary structural component of language and is necessary for meaning to be present.

The very use of concepts, words, and logical systems introduces elements that don't fit, which overdetermine the set of concepts, or which are tautological.

To the extent that you feel you can actually communicate anything to us at all, is a tribute to the harmony of logic.

But the communication isn't actually perfect. The meanings of my words aren't fixed. This is how miscommunications happen, this is how jokes occur.

It's entirely possible for lengthy communication to be carried out, with each party working in an entirely different framework and using entirely different meanings. The communication can still function, meaning they are both sending and receiving messages, but there doesn't have to be any actual correspondence between the meanings that the parties have.

Language and logic have their limits, they are not complete or harmonious. Complete logic is madness.

Trying to undermine all that using words is like trying to put out a fire by using a flamethrower.

It is absolutely possible to undermine language using language.

It's also possible to put out a fire with a flamethrower. Let me offer a riddle of an example:

A man is on an island, this island is 100 yards long just like a football field, and sits atop a 600 ft tall pillar of rock. He cannot jump off of the island or he will die. The entire surface of his island is covered in very flammable dried grass with strong roots that cannot be pulled out of the ground. He will be rescued in 1 day so he's not worried about starving.

However, a fire starts on the East end of the island. The wind is blowing towards the west, so the fire begins to creep towards the man. The wall of fire is burning extremely hot and is roaring about 10 feet tall, so he can't jump over it, and it's moving right towards him.

The only tool at his disposal, is a flamethrower. The fire has already moved, let's say 10 yards closer to him. How can he use his flamethrower to avoid being cooked in the approaching fire?

Odysseus

12-21-2011, 04:19 PM

How do you choose to believe?

You either believe something or you do not. That is the problem I have always had with Pascal's Wager. God, being omnipotent, would see through the cynical hedge; He would be able to recognize genuine faith as opposed to superficial machinations and hollow rituals.
I choose to admit that I don't know the truth, and therefore cannot decide based on the evidence. I lack faith in God, but also lack faith in the absence of God.

The nonexistence of God can't be proven in an absolute sense but it can be proven in a practical sense and to the same extent that the nonexistence of werewolves, for example, can be proven.

On nights when the moon is full, do you ever find yourself worrying about werewolves? Of course not. You don't worry about werewolves because their nonexistence is practically proven. And the same goes for God, Heaven, and Hell. Why should anyone spend even a second of time worrying about such nonsense?

When I was a kid, a couple of werewolf movies scared the crap out of me, and ever since then, nights with a full moon give me a twinge of anxiety, just enough to remember what scared me in the movies. If I were walking alone on a moonlit moor and heard a long, plaintive howl behind me, followed by rustling, soft footpads and the odd growl, I assure you that I'd break into a run, as would you.

Regardless, the issue is not why anyone would spend a second worrying about what you consider nonsense, but whether what you consider nonsense is, in fact, objectively quantified as nonsense. You are elevating your opinion above all others, but providing no factual basis for doing so.

The very use of language, Wei, requires an ascent to the harmony of logical relations and coherence - after all, words and their definitions are bona fide logical equivalences.

To the extent that you feel you can actually communicate anything to us at all, is a tribute to the harmony of logic. Trying to undermine all that using words is like trying to put out a fire by using a flamethrower.

Chill out, Spock.

Adam Wood

12-21-2011, 04:39 PM

My favorite is cogito ergo est .... I think therefore you is.

LOL!

JB

12-21-2011, 04:54 PM

Hmm... I wonder... What do people like AmPat, Baily, JB or TxRadioGuy make you want to do?Was I just insulted? :D

I could go back and read through the thread but what are you saying?

JB

12-21-2011, 04:59 PM

I don't know why you guys continue to entertain the giant douche TNO. I guess it's slow around here.

For you atheists out there, TNO, as we all know, is on the wrong side of everything. That alone should be proof enough for you that God does exist. Repent now!!!

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 05:33 PM

When I was a kid, a couple of werewolf movies scared the crap out of me, and ever since then, nights with a full moon give me a twinge of anxiety, just enough to remember what scared me in the movies. If I were walking alone on a moonlit moor and heard a long, plaintive howl behind me, followed by rustling, soft footpads and the odd growl, I assure you that I'd break into a run, as would you.

You might run at the sound of a wild animal coming toward you but would you think for even a second that it's a man who has transformed into a beast? Of course not.

Nice try.

Odysseus

12-21-2011, 05:48 PM

You might run at the sound of a wild animal but would you think for even a second that it's a man who has transformed into a beast? Of course not. Nice try.

Unless, of course, there were other evidence to put the idea of a man transforming into a beast into my head. A shreded trail of clothing, for example, or some other empirical evidence, might make me worry about it. However, you fail to address the other point, which is that you are one opinion holder among six-billion, and you are not the arbiter of what is and isn't nonsense. In fact, as we have seen in the various AGW threads, you are far more likely to worry about something that I consider nonsense, but which you believe wholeheartedly, and all evidence to the contrary be damned.

You have every right to believe what you choose to believe, but you do not have the right to dictate the beliefs of others, or impose yours on them.

The Night Owl

12-21-2011, 06:03 PM

Unless, of course, there were other evidence to put the idea of a man transforming into a beast into my head. A shreded trail of clothing, for example, or some other empirical evidence, might make me worry about it.

I would need more than a trail of shredded clothing to make me believe a man has transformed into a wolf. I mean, seriously... but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about assumptions made in the absence of evidence. In the absence of evidence of werewolves, we assume there are no werewolves. In the absence of evidence of God, we assume there is no God. Or at least we should assume there is no God because that's a very safe bet in the same way that assuming there are no werewolves is a safe bet.

JB

12-21-2011, 06:14 PM

In the absence of evidence of God, we assume there is no God. Or at least we should assume there is no God because that's a very safe bet in the same way that assuming there are no werewolves is a safe bet.Aye Carumba. How thick is your skull?

The evidence is there but I'm not going to get into that with you.

The belief is based in faith. But let me ask you this...Do you at least believe, from an historical standpoint, that a man named Jesus Christ walked the earth some 2,000 years ago?

Odysseus

12-21-2011, 06:16 PM

I would need more than a trail of shredded clothing to make me believe a man has transformed into a wolf. I mean, seriously... but that's neither here nor there. We're talking about assumptions made in the absence of evidence. In the absence of evidence of werewolves, we assume there are no werewolves. In the absence of evidence of God, we assume there is no God. Or at least we should assume there is no God because that's a very safe bet in the same way that assuming there are no werewolves is a safe bet.

But in the absence of evidence of global warming, we must bankrupt ourselves and our children?

Again, it's not that there is an absence of proof for and against God, only how you choose to interpret it.

JB

12-21-2011, 06:19 PM

But in the absence of evidence of global warming, we must bankrupt ourselves and our children?Scientists believe that 80+% of the universe is made up of dark matter. Yet they have not seen it yet.

I wonder if TNO does not believe them also.

Arroyo_Doble

12-21-2011, 06:29 PM

Scientists believe that 80+% of the universe is made up of dark matter. Yet they have not seen it yet.

I wonder if TNO does not believe them also.

"Well, the thing about a Black Hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour - is black. So how are you supposed to see them?"

~ Holly from Red Dwarf

JB

12-21-2011, 06:37 PM

"Well, the thing about a Black Hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, your basic space colour - is black. So how are you supposed to see them?"If dark matter escapes from a black hole and no one is around to observe it, did it really happen?

By the way, I don't consider this thread jacking as we are passed the unwritten "10 page rule". :D

ABC in Georgia

12-21-2011, 08:46 PM

If dark matter escapes from a black hole and no one is around to observe it, did it really happen?

No! No! No! :nono:

Please don't go there!

I am none the worse for not knowing nor caring about black holes, am I?

Never-the-less, carry on if you must! :D

~ ABC

Wei Wu Wei

12-21-2011, 08:59 PM

Okay so let's clear something up.

There is no scientific evidence for God. That's just how it is. That's not to say that's the end of the story, but it's safe to say that God hasn't been, or can't be scientifically proven. Of course, science isn't the path to Truth. The philosophic underpinnings of empirical science are very limiting (which is why the scientific method is great as a tool for investigation, but not a lense for uncovering Truth).

There is scientific evidence for dark matter. We don't need to have dark matter in a laboratory, we have observations and measurements that support the theory. A lot of it too

There is scientific evidence for climate change as well. The sort of anti-science stuff I hear from climate change deniers sounds exactly like the stuff I hear from evolution deniers. It's ridiculous and frankly it's grounded in a total ignorance of science.

In fact, I was at dinner about a week ago with some friends. I met someone new that night, who proclaimed that he didn't believe in evolution, that it was a lie. Now this was quite an interesting thing to say at a table of educated people. Several of us were either researchers or had participated in research at some point in our careers. There were a few biology specialists too. Needless to say, the conversation was a little one sided, yet the creationist insisted that he didn't have to understand evolution to know it was a lie. We were dumbfounded.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 12:22 AM

Scientists believe that 80+% of the universe is made up of dark matter. Yet they have not seen it yet.

I wonder if TNO does not believe them also.

Scientists hypothesize that much of the Universe is dark matter. It's not a belief. It's a hypothesis.

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 12:28 AM

Scientists hypothesize that much of the Universe is dark matter. It's not a belief. It's a hypothesis.

hy·poth·e·sis
noun \hī-ˈpä-thə-səs\
plural hy·poth·e·ses
Definition of HYPOTHESIS
1
a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2
: a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3
: the antecedent clause of a conditional statement
That there looks kinda like a belief.

Wei Wu Wei

12-22-2011, 12:33 AM

Don't confuse the conversational form of the word "hypothesis" with the scientific form.

This is what people always say about the word "theory" as well, mistaking the casual usage of the word for the scientific definition.

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 12:40 AM

Don't confuse the conversational form of the word "hypothesis" with the scientific form.

This is what people always say about the word "theory" as well, mistaking the casual usage of the word for the scientific definition.

Actually Hooties statement has as much importance as this.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/hypothesis11348s.jpg

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 12:43 AM

Actually Hooties statement has as much importance as this.
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/hypothesis11348s.jpg

An hour later these dogs will produce dark matter which Hootie will then spread here.

AmPat

12-22-2011, 02:12 AM

I am not an Atheist.

I like C.S. Lewis, by the way. I have all his works. The Screwtape Letters is fantastic.

I missed a live performance of The Screwtape Letters last year due to work. If I get another chance, I will go.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 02:59 PM

But in the absence of evidence of global warming, we must bankrupt ourselves and our children?

Again, it's not that there is an absence of proof for and against God, only how you choose to interpret it.

Right. I interpret the absence of God in the same way I interpret the absence of werewolves. By assuming it doesn't exist. By not worrying about it.

burwil

12-22-2011, 03:05 PM

Right. I interpret the absence of God in the same way I interpret the absence of werewolves. By assuming it doesn't exist. By not worrying about it.

If only there were an absence of theism!

ABC in Georgia

12-22-2011, 03:27 PM

If only there were an absence of theism!

To which I reply ... If only there were an absence of LIBERALS! :D

What I really wanted to type, if truth be known and politeness be damned is :

Why don't you just bugger off?!!

Ooh! That felt good! (Blush!)

~ ABC

burwil

12-22-2011, 03:30 PM

There's always a surplus of meaning that isn't captured by the word or the definition. The correlation isn't 1 to 1.

There is always a gap between what is said and what is meant, this gap is a necessary structural component of language and is necessary for meaning to be present.

The very use of concepts, words, and logical systems introduces elements that don't fit, which overdetermine the set of concepts, or which are tautological.

But the communication isn't actually perfect. The meanings of my words aren't fixed. This is how miscommunications happen, this is how jokes occur.

It's entirely possible for lengthy communication to be carried out, with each party working in an entirely different framework and using entirely different meanings. The communication can still function, meaning they are both sending and receiving messages, but there doesn't have to be any actual correspondence between the meanings that the parties have.

Honestly, I don't even know what the heck you are actually trying to say anymore. And I'm not sure what you have against tautalogies.

Yes, miscommunications, equivocations, etc are frequent. Yes, the definitions of words can be fluid. Yes, there's always a gulf of difference between our conceptual representation of a word, and the real world things to which words refer (maps are not the territory). This is not news to me. So frakkin what?

Language and logic have their limits, they are not complete or harmonious. Complete logic is madness.

I can't even fathom what you mean by this. Not to mention, God is generally considered to be flawlessly rational and logical - I guess that makes him mad?

It's also possible to put out a fire with a flamethrower. Let me offer a riddle of an example:

Taking an interpretive license with a rather simple, off-the-cuff analogy doesnt help your case (whatever that case is, though, I'm still not sure)

How bout this. You can't demonstrate ~P, by way of an argument that relies on the truth of P.

burwil

12-22-2011, 03:42 PM

To which I reply ... If only there were an absence of LIBERALS! :D

What I really wanted to type, if truth be known and politeness be damned is :

Why don't you just buggar off?!!

Ooh! That felt good! (Blush!)

~ ABC

Well, ABC - as I've always said - any bluntness I tend to express with respect to certain beliefs (like theism) is really no different then the bluntness you just expressed with respect to liberalism.

Odysseus

12-22-2011, 03:53 PM

Right. I interpret the absence of God in the same way I interpret the absence of werewolves. By assuming it doesn't exist. By not worrying about it.
But, and this is the critical point, just because you interpret things a certain way, that doesn't mean that your interpretation is the correct one. You choose to believe that because you cannot see something, and you do not want to see it, that it therefore isn't there and cannot be there.

Well, ABC - as I've always said - any bluntness I tend to express with respect to certain beliefs (like theism) is really no different then the bluntness you just expressed with respect to liberalism.

For a guy who claims not to be a liberal, you sure get upset when liberalism is criticized.

Wei Wu Wei

12-22-2011, 04:18 PM

Honestly, I don't even know what the heck you are actually trying to say anymore. And I'm not sure what you have against tautalogies.

Okay I am doing a very poor job of putting my thoughts into words here.

I'm not against tautologies so much, but I am pointing out that they tend to short-circuit a line of logical thought because one term tends to assert itself as self-justified, without appeal to any other terms. Logical process cannot continue at this point.

Yes, miscommunications, equivocations, etc are frequent. Yes, the definitions of words can be fluid. Yes, there's always a gulf of difference between our conceptual representation of a word, and the real world things to which words refer (maps are not the territory). This is not news to me. So frakkin what?

Logic is based on language, and language necessarily contains what you describe here as part of it's structure, so complete logical harmony is impossible.

It's not impossible because of some human limit like oh the human mind cannot be perfectly logical but if only we could then maybbe....no. Total logical harmony is an inherent impossibility embedded in the structure of logic itself.

I can't even fathom what you mean by this. Not to mention, God is generally considered to be flawlessly rational and logical - I guess that makes him mad?

I'm not so great at putting my thoughts into words, but that statement I made was inspired by a work by G.K.Chesterton:

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/130/pg130.html

You should give chapter 2 a read for investigations on madness
Chapter 3 for his defense of religion.

AS for the question about God, I don't think any such thing so you'd have to ask someone else.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 04:34 PM

But, and this is the critical point, just because you interpret things a certain way, that doesn't mean that your interpretation is the correct one. You choose to believe that because you cannot see something, and you do not want to see it, that it therefore isn't there and cannot be there.

For a guy who claims not to be a liberal, you sure get upset when liberalism is criticized.

Did I not start by acknowledging that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven in an absolute sense? The point I have been making all along is that for all practical purposes we can reasonably conclude that God is as real as werewolves.

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 04:42 PM

Okay I am doing a very poor job of putting my thoughts into words here.

Actually this is the single most intelligent thought you have ever expressed here and I applaud you for it.

Honesty is the first step toward recovery!

Arroyo_Doble

12-22-2011, 04:42 PM

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 04:47 PM

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.

All we have are werecoyotes around here.:(

txradioguy

12-22-2011, 04:50 PM

All we have are werecoyotes around here.:(

And a bunch of Liberal Zombies.

Actually the Foul Owl and Wilbur keep proving what I said earlier...they aren't Athiests like Jonsey.

They are anti-Theists...which is completely different.

Adam Wood

12-22-2011, 05:27 PM

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.You would if a naked American man stole your balloons.

JB

12-22-2011, 05:29 PM

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.That's because you've never been to London.

Odysseus

12-22-2011, 06:16 PM

Did I not start by acknowledging that the existence of God cannot be proven or disproven in an absolute sense? The point I have been making all along is that for all practical purposes we can reasonably conclude that God is as real as werewolves.
And, once again, your point is invalid. It only applies if the criteria for the establishment of the existence of God is the same as the criteria for establishing the existence of werewolves. It is entirely possible for one to exist independently of the other.

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.
There are benefits to being attacked by a werewolf on the moors.
http://www.thesnipenews.com/thegutter/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Jenny-Agutter-in-American-Werewolf-in-London.jpg

You would if a naked American man stole your balloons.
Give him back his balloons and put your clothes on. :D

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 06:47 PM

And, once again, your point is invalid. It only applies if the criteria for the establishment of the existence of God is the same as the criteria for establishing the existence of werewolves. It is entirely possible for one to exist independently of the other.

Huh? Where have I suggested that the existence of God depends on the existence of werewolves or vice versa? All I'm arguing is that for all practical purposes neither has been shown to exist.

Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with Snuggle Bunny. You don't really care if your arguments make sense or don't make sense. I get the feeling you just want to carry water for the theists so they'll like you.

JB

12-22-2011, 06:54 PM

All I'm arguing is that for all practical purposes neither has been shown to exist.Either does the Higgs Boson. But folks a lot smarter than you believe it does.
You don't really care if your arguments make sense.LMAO.

/begin cliche

Pot. Kettle.

/end cliche

Arroyo_Doble

12-22-2011, 06:57 PM

/begin cliche

Pot. Kettle.

/end cliche

The hue of the pot doesn't change the color of the kettle.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 07:16 PM

Either does the Higgs Boson. But folks a lot smarter than you believe it does.LMAO.

Scientists hypothesize that the Higgs Boson exists. That's not the same as saying that scientists "believe" it exists.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 08:09 PM

You know, I never really worried about werewolves until I read this thread.

You're still a theist, right? I should hope you would be worried about werewolves. I mean, if you believe in a god, you have no practical basis for ruling out the existence of werewolves.

Arroyo_Doble

12-22-2011, 09:15 PM

You're still a theist, right? I should hope you would be worried about werewolves. I mean, if you believe in a god, you have no practical basis for ruling out the existence of werewolves.

Yes, yes. I am conceding your point. If I am willing to explore Existence and Being for things wholly outside my own thoughts, to entertain the notion that Everything actually Is and is not an ordered delusion to comfort my Self in its lonely trek through Nothing, I must also admit the possibility of werewolves.

The Night Owl

12-22-2011, 09:41 PM

Yes, yes. I am conceding your point. If I am willing to explore Existence and Being for things wholly outside my own thoughts, to entertain the notion that Everything actually Is and is not an ordered delusion to comfort my Self in its lonely trek through Nothing, I must also admit the possibility of werewolves.

So, you're agnostic regarding existence of werewolves. Fair enough. So, what makes you believe God is, more than a possibility, actually real? And why doesn't the reasoning which leads you to think of werewolves as nothing more than possibilities apply to the question of God's existence?

Rockntractor

12-22-2011, 09:41 PM

Yes, yes. I am conceding your point. If I am willing to explore Existence and Being for things wholly outside my own thoughts, to entertain the notion that Everything actually Is and is not an ordered delusion to comfort my Self in its lonely trek through Nothing, I must also admit the possibility of werewolves.

They could be wolves with demons, in the Bible demons were cast into pigs once.:eek:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/pig2000-1.jpg
Looks like British dentistry.:confused:

So, you're agnostic regarding existence of werewolves. Fair enough. So, what makes you believe God is, more than a possibility, actually real? And why doesn't the reasoning which leads you to think of werewolves as nothing more than possibilities apply to the question of God's existence?

Existence itself has constraints on it that come with it's conception. The questions about what existence is can be a tricky discussion, but let's assume we all know what it means for something to exist for a second:

Does your Self (your ego, the "you character" which you identify with, what you refer to when you say "I", the story that you tie together to unify the vast collection of experiences and memories, etc) exist?

If every cell in your body dies and is replaced by new cells several times over in a given period of time, in what sense are you still the same "you"?

I'm curious about how you conceptualize your selfhood without the appeal to a soul. I don't think a soul concept is necessary, but I'm wondering how you make sense of it.

Novaheart

12-22-2011, 11:14 PM

Question. Is Anne Frank in hell?

Anne Frank was baptized into the LDS Church. She is on a planet somewhere with her family.

Odysseus

12-23-2011, 12:43 AM

Huh? Where have I suggested that the existence of God depends on the existence of werewolves or vice versa? All I'm arguing is that for all practical purposes neither has been shown to exist.
You have argued that the same logic must apply to both. You haven't actually argued that neither has been shown to exist, you have just asserted it.

Arguing with you reminds me of arguing with Snuggle Bunny. You don't really care if your arguments make sense or don't make sense. I get the feeling you just want to carry water for the theists so they'll like you.

Uh, no. I like the theists because they tend not to want to dictate the terms of my own belief or lack of it. I dislike you because I find you judgmental and dishonest, and not just about religion.

burwil

12-23-2011, 10:11 AM

I'm curious about how you conceptualize your selfhood without the appeal to a soul. I don't think a soul concept is necessary, but I'm wondering how you make sense of it.

Hmmm... just what is the soul supposed to help you with, with respect to the "self"?

The Night Owl

12-23-2011, 10:59 AM

You have argued that the same logic must apply to both. You haven't actually argued that neither has been shown to exist, you have just asserted it.

So, why do you suppose no serious person worries about werewolves when the moon is full? Could it be because there is no evidence for werewolves?

The Night Owl

12-23-2011, 11:00 AM

Hmmm... just what is the soul supposed to help you with, with respect to the "self"?

Telling the ladies that you're a spiritual guy helps you get laid!

burwil

12-23-2011, 11:14 AM

Telling the ladies that you're a spiritual guy helps you get laid!

Boy is that true. Thankfully, my lovely wife is a notable exception!

AmPat

12-23-2011, 12:08 PM

So, why do you suppose no serious person worries about werewolves when the moon is full? Could it be because there is no evidence for werewolves?
The werewolves would have been created by The Almighty God as well and as such are subject to his Covenants. They have no power to cast me into Hell or permit me into Heaven. I choose God.;)

Telling the ladies that you're a spiritual guy helps you get laid!

Psst! The "ladies" are really men and they desire to have a word with you in the back room.:eek:

BadCat

12-23-2011, 12:14 PM

Boy is that true. Thankfully, my lovely wife is a notable exception!

Good to know you think Bruce is "notable"...he'll be pleased.

burwil

12-23-2011, 12:21 PM

Good to know you think Bruce is "notable"...he'll be pleased.

Did you know there are studies which show that this sort of anti-gay attitude is often associated with higher levels of arousal from homosexual images and videos? I think they might be onto something.

If I were in fact married to a "lovely dude", I'd be proud to say it.

Food for thought.

BadCat

12-23-2011, 12:25 PM

Did you know there are studies which show that this sort of anti-gay attitude is often associated with higher levels of arousal from homosexual images and videos? I think they might be onto something.

If I were in fact married to a "lovely dude", I'd be proud to say it.

Food for thought.

Did you know that pissing off moderators who hate you in the first place is a real good way to get a vacation from a discussion board?

Food for thought.

MrsSmith

12-23-2011, 12:26 PM

So, why do you suppose no serious person worries about werewolves when the moon is full? Could it be because there is no evidence for werewolves?

There is little evidence of werewolves. But we live in a universe stuffed full of evidence of God. Everything from the Big Bang to the origin of life to the rational basis of the workings of the universe to the ability humans have to understand that rational basis speaks of God. The intricate workings of cells, the storage capability of DNA, the expanse of space all speak of His work. The "way humans work" also testify in every way from the billions that have accepted the Holy Spirit to the programs that help felons...the ones with the lowest recidivism rates are always the ones that include God's assistance.

One of the strangest things about humans is the ability of some of the smartest to believe in fairy tales like life arising from dead material without assistance, the ability of this life to then create RNA and DNA without assistance, and the idea that the universe "just happened" without assistance.

Novaheart

12-23-2011, 12:46 PM

One of the strangest things about humans is the ability of some of the smartest to believe in fairy tales like life arising from dead material without assistance, the ability of this life to then create RNA and DNA without assistance, and the idea that the universe "just happened" without assistance.

And there you have fouled your own propeller. Just as the rationalist cannot explain how you get something from nothing, neither can the religionist explain where God came came from. All the religionist can do is claim that God has always existed. One could as easily claim that life has always existed.

The only real truth here is that neither science nor mythology can explain the ultimate origin, ie how something came of nothing. This does not make science and mythology equals however, and many religionists try to act as if it does.

And there you have fouled your own propeller. Just as the rationalist cannot explain how you get something from nothing, neither can the religionist explain where God came came from. All the religionist can do is claim that God has always existed. One could as easily claim that life has always existed.

The only real truth here is that neither science nor mythology can explain the ultimate origin, ie how something came of nothing. This does not make science and mythology equals however, and many religionists try to act as if it does.

Except for the fact that we know the universe had a beginning. :D Life probably has always existed, since God is alive and has always existed (eternal, you know. It means "forever, no beginning, no end.) However, the type of life humans have obviously started after the universe started.

In fact, science will eventually prove God, if we can ever learn enough.

MrsSmith

12-23-2011, 01:23 PM

Weak sauce, troll. Weak.

Weak? You mean like coming back to a board from which you've been banned? Of course, no one could possibly guess who you are, with that clever alias. :)

The Night Owl

12-23-2011, 03:05 PM

There is little evidence of werewolves. But we live in a universe stuffed full of evidence of God. Everything from the Big Bang to the origin of life to the rational basis of the workings of the universe to the ability humans have to understand that rational basis speaks of God. The intricate workings of cells, the storage capability of DNA, the expanse of space all speak of His work. The "way humans work" also testify in every way from the billions that have accepted the Holy Spirit to the programs that help felons...the ones with the lowest recidivism rates are always the ones that include God's assistance.

You assume that everything around you is evidence of God but there is no reason to believe that it is.

Novaheart

12-23-2011, 03:14 PM

Except for the fact that we know the universe had a beginning.

I don't know that we do. It's a very human perspective to seek a beginning and and end for things, assuming that all things have a life cycle more or less similar to our own. Not only do we not know that the universe had a beginning, we have no reason to believe that the answer matters.

Life probably has always existed, since God is alive and has always existed (eternal, you know. It means "forever, no beginning, no end.)

If God, or more likely a being you would think of as a god, exists then it would be a life form. The most we could say about it, even if it tells us otherwise, is that its origin and lifespan are not known. If God were indeed eternal, how would God know it is eternal? Can it also predict its own future? Oddly, the Bible gives us considerable evidence that God answers to some physical forces and limitations of time and space. But then, the Bible ascribes all sorts of unlikely human resemblances upon God.

burwil

12-23-2011, 03:49 PM

Weak? You mean like coming back to a board from which you've been banned? Of course, no one could possibly guess who you are, with that clever alias. :)

Yes, weak - he knows it.

It wasn't meant to fool anybody - this account was only created to send PM's to a couple people, several months ago.

And what an appropriate way to way to honor the passing of Hitchens... commenting on the absurdity of all this "choosing hell" stuff. I'm not "back", nor do I intend to come back.

Rockntractor

12-23-2011, 04:05 PM

Yes, weak - he knows it.

It wasn't meant to fool anybody - this account was only created to send PM's to a couple people, several months ago.

And what an appropriate way to way to honor the passing of Hitchens... commenting on the absurdity of all this "choosing hell" stuff. I'm not "back", nor do I intend to come back.

You may leave now then.

BadCat

12-23-2011, 05:42 PM

Gee Rock, I was going to show some holiday spirit and not ban him until Christmas day.

Rockntractor

12-23-2011, 05:44 PM

Gee Rock, I was going to show some holiday spirit and not ban him until Christmas day.

Sorry, the hammer slipped and before I could catch it it had driven his head through his asshole, quite dreadful really!:eek:

MrsSmith

12-23-2011, 06:07 PM

I don't know that we do. It's a very human perspective to seek a beginning and and end for things, assuming that all things have a life cycle more or less similar to our own. Not only do we not know that the universe had a beginning, we have no reason to believe that the answer matters.

If God, or more likely a being you would think of as a god, exists then it would be a life form. The most we could say about it, even if it tells us otherwise, is that its origin and lifespan are not known. If God were indeed eternal, how would God know it is eternal? Can it also predict its own future? Oddly, the Bible gives us considerable evidence that God answers to some physical forces and limitations of time and space. But then, the Bible ascribes all sorts of unlikely human resemblances upon God.

Humans don't have an easy time understanding concepts like "eternal," or the kind of being that can speak mass and energy into existence. The Bible only has human language to explain those things. Even the most intelligent of humans, with the knowledge we have from thousands of years of civilization, can have great difficulty with the concept of the Being that created time and wrote physics into the universe. Many can't quite get beyond thinking of Him as some sort of Superman, with a little more knowledge and strength than everyone else. To see Him as the author of the universe, creator of life, and ultimate source of both Love and Justice is just beyond many. :)

For example, exactly what kind of "future" exists in timeless eternity? God made time for us, He doesn't live within time Himself. What kind of lifespan exists without time?

Of course, we all get to look forward to dying and having many of these questions answered. Those of us that have accepted His protection have a better time of it, though.

MrsSmith

12-23-2011, 06:18 PM

Yes, weak - he knows it.

It wasn't meant to fool anybody - this account was only created to send PM's to a couple people, several months ago.

And what an appropriate way to way to honor the passing of Hitchens... commenting on the absurdity of all this "choosing hell" stuff. I'm not "back", nor do I intend to come back.

Yeah, poor Hitchens. :(:(:( I really feel for that man...so smart, and so foolish.

But what is this? You aren't back, and you don't intend to come back? Then how is it that you're banned again? Poor wilbur...so smart, but so foolish. :D:D

Odysseus

12-23-2011, 07:06 PM

So, why do you suppose no serious person worries about werewolves when the moon is full? Could it be because there is no evidence for werewolves?
We don't know that "no" serious person believes in werewolves. We just know that in our culture, it's not a common belief.

Telling the ladies that you're a spiritual guy helps you get laid!
So, you're perpetuating your celibacy by pronouncing yourself a militant atheist?

You assume that everything around you is evidence of God but there is no reason to believe that it is.
While you assume that nothing is evidence of God. There are lots of reasons to believe and not to believe. It's a choice, remember? Once the choice is made, we interpret the evidence to suit our choice, but you are on no firmer ground than the theists.

Sorry, the hammer slipped and before I could catch it it had driven his head through his asshole, quite dreadful really!:eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rY0WxgSXdEE&ob=av2e

JB

12-23-2011, 07:12 PM

So, you're perpetuating your celibacy by pronouncing yourself a militant atheist?
He's so dumb he tells it to his hand too.

Novaheart

12-23-2011, 09:20 PM

It's a choice, remember? Once the choice is made, we interpret the evidence to suit our choice, but you are on no firmer ground than the theists.

I disagree. A nontheist is on much firmer ground than a theist. But I really like the honesty in "we interpret the evidence to suit our needs".

It would be much easier to believe in God, but it simply doesn't make sense to do so.

Articulate_Ape

12-23-2011, 10:37 PM

What does make sense to you, Nova?

Zathras

12-24-2011, 12:30 AM

Boy is that true. Thankfully, my lovely wife is a notable exception!

So that's your name for your right hand?

Odysseus

12-24-2011, 11:51 AM

He's so dumb he tells it to his hand too.

I disagree. A nontheist is on much firmer ground than a theist. But I really like the honesty in "we interpret the evidence to suit our needs".
Well, I'm the agnostic here, so in my case, it may be more of a rationalization than the for the others.

It would be much easier to believe in God, but it simply doesn't make sense to do so.

No necessarily. Belief in God, real belief, places serious demands on you. Atheism offers all sorts of rationales for doing whatever you want. To an atheist, there are no consequences beyond the here and now. The focus on immediate gratification is supported by a belief that there is nothing judging you, and often, it gives license to do things that shock the conscience. Some of the greatest crimes in history were committed by those whose avowed disbelief in God freed them to play god.

AmPat

12-24-2011, 12:42 PM

You assume that everything around you is evidence of God but there is no reason to believe that it is.

You assume that everything around you is not evidence of God but there is no reason to believe that it isn't.

She has more proof of His existence than you do of His non-existence.:cool: